That's all fine and dandy until you know, he decides to expose Phoenix as a poker cheat only a few hours after.
"HEY I'M SORRY I CAUSED YOU SO MUCH TROUBLE SO HOW WILL I REPAY YOU? BY EXPOSING YOU AS A CHEAT!"


No it isn't. A fist fight would have been equivalent to a bar brawl, but Zak didn't punch her did he? he grabbed a weapon and knocked her unconcious which could have easily killed her. What if the bottle shattered? What if he hit just the right spot and it broke her neck? I just don't understand how you think he is justified, when he is completely in the wrong. No matter how much you argue you're WRONG because it goes against the law. If you really believe that someone in court would get away with injuring someone because he felt "cheated" then you seriously need to take a law class.






Are you being serious? the whole point is that him comitting this crime makes him a JERK.


But WHY is it nessecary for him to expose the man who is taking care of his CHILD?BECAUSE.HE.IS.A.JERK.



Once again why is it nessecary for him to ruin Phoenix's poker rep? why does it matter that phoenix cheated? he sure as hell was fine hiring the "good kind" guy for his trial and trusting him with his kid, he wouldn't trust his kid with a cheat would he? oh wai-


No we shouldn't be sympathetic with him. He assualted someone over a poker loss, boo fucking hoo. And your POV comparison is awful and is completely stretching the real situation to that of extreme.

Olga didn't cheat him, nor did he have any reason to believe she did. And once again it was over poker, she didn't steal from him, she didn't hurt anyone he loved and she most definently didn't screw his life over. It was because his plan failed. But then again you and P_J think it's acceptable to hit someone with a bottle over nothing so really there isn't much use in argueing about it.

---

sympathetic with Zak's assault

sympathetic with Zak's assault

sympathetic with Zak's assault

DDD=

SYMPATHETIC WITH THE ATTACKER!? Okay, this has reached a whole new level of crazy. Don't you understand that EVERY person who has ever committed a violent crime EVER felt JUSTIFIED? Just like Zak did! That doesn't mean it's OKAY.

Assault is illegal for a REASON. It's not just illegal for the lulz. It's illegal because it's BAD. Zak is a JERK for doing this, regardless of whether or not he felt cheated. Regardless of how angry and blinded by rage he was. You do NOT HIT PEOPLE WITH A DANGEROUS OBJECT. This is NOT OKAY. EVER.

And it isn't as if this is even an isolated incident! Again and again, the game reminds us of Zak's violent tendencies! Look how often he punches Brushel, his "FRIEND". Or are you saying Brushel deserves to be punched for being "annoying"?

I'd hate to use hyperbole, but that's like saying a woman deserves to be raped because she dressed up in pretty clothes. Clearly, by being attractive, she WANTED that kind of attention. How could the attacker be blamed for his lapse in judgment? He was blinded by his desire because she was SO BEAUTIFUL. Is that okay too, guys? Should we be sympathetic in this case?

You're victim blaming! Do you have any idea how awful that is? Granted, this is just a game character, so who cares? But your whole mentality towards the concept is on the concerning side. Is this how you react to these situations in REAL life?

Given Zak's violent history, I wouldn't be surprised if he beat Thalassa too! She sure doesn't seem too upset about his death when she gets her memory back. She even says "This is the first time in my life I've ever been truly happy". HUH. Guess Zak must've been a real JERK for his WIFE and MOTHER OF HIS CHILD to not even spare him a sad thought. As for the argument that Trucy likes Zak, well, I wouldnt be surprised if he didn't really pay much attention to her except for planning his schemes and cons. After all, he sure didn't have any problem with ABANDONING her. Trucy's "affection" might just be the reaction of a child desperately trying to win her neglectful father's love. She sure does attach herself to PHOENIX quickly and start calling him daddy immediately. That's the sign of a child DESPERATE for a REAL parental figure.

And another thing. You keep saying Zak "knew" Phoenix would adopt Trucy because he's pure of heart. THE TWO ARE NOT RELATED. You can be the kindest, purest person in the world and still not adopt another person's child! Phoenix had no obligation, and was probably not even the best person for the job! Zak had NO WAY OF KNOWING Phoenix would adopt Trucy, and not even asking Phoenix before dumping her on him was a JERK THING TO DO. No matter how you excuse it, it was still JERKISH of him.

Zak never made any plans for Trucy. He abandoned her. If he and Valant were such good buds (which I doubt, given Valant's disdain for him. Zak probably bullied him too. Hell, maybe Valant knew Zak beat Thalassa and Valant hated him for it!) and was SO SURPRISED at Valant testifying against him, why didn't Zak leave Trucy with HIM?

Because he didn't give a damn!

The only thing Zak needed to "know" about Phoenix by competing with him was Phoenix's ability to bluff long enough for Zak's escape plan to work. That's IT.

He abandoned his daughter. He screwed over his lawyers (both Phoenix and Kristoph). He has shown remorseless violent tendencies. AND he then returns to expose the man whose career HE ruined, and who still raised his DAUGHTER for him, and for what? Not for truth, otherwise he would've done it without hiring a CRIMINAL to CHEAT Phoenix. (Ever hear the expression "you're as good as the company you keep"?) Zak did it because he's a JERK.

The mind boggles. I can't even argue with you guys. We keep presenting actual canon facts, and you two just excuse them by twisting the canon, or downplaying them entirely!

---

Ok lotta work for me...



Ok I'm sorry, sympathetic is the wrong word. I mean Empathic really, putting yourself in his shoes seeing things from his perspective then you can understand why he was so infuriated. If someone had cheated you out of a lot of money and ruined your plans was standing there right in front of you would you do nothing?



Well you said it not me about punching Brushel for being annoying but as we've said earlier some friends are ok hitting each other, I know a few people who've punched friends playfully (but not weakly) just as friends. Never decked anyone though with these punches but then again Brushel doesn't look very sturdy.



I'd hold your tongue there young sir, your comments are bordering dangerously on personal attacks. And I'm victim blaming because in Zaks eyes he was the victim of a horrible con. She deserved to get hit in his point of view because she had agreed to help him, took his money then cheated him out of it all hence BONK.



Jumping to conclusions, slippery slope argument is not acceptable blah blah blah.



Thats quite an exaggeration "truly" happy does not neccessarily mean the rest of her life was unhappy. It's equivalent to saying "it's the happiest moment of our life". Maybe she wasn't happy with Zak as a husband....that doesn't mean he wasn't a nice guy to her. Take affairs for instance. One member of the marriage is unaware (normally) continuing on with their loving work for the family while the other is unsatisfied and is seeing someone else on the side. Just because she was never 'truly happy' with Zak doesn't neccessarily mean he was a bad husband.



That's a lot of conjecture and assumption your making there. Have some of my own that I've said earlier as an alternative theory.
Zak instructed Trucy before he left to appeal to Phoenix as a daddy or told her that Phoenix would be her new daddy now knowing that her charm and Phoenix's good nature would eventually lead to him to accept her into his family. Also he did have problems abandoning her as he said in the Borsht Bowl Club that she "was the only thing that gave me pause" meaning it tore him up inside at the time.



Nah uh pure of heart means that there's no way Phoenix would let such a homeless girl go uncared for if she appealed to him. Maybe not necessarily adopted but at least taken care of. And sure Zak couldn't have known this he's no psychic but he ASSUMED based on his judgement of Phoenix's character. He trusted in Phoenix's nature and as we can see...it's paid off and Trucy got another loving father to look after her while her dad was on the run. Furthermore it secures a place for Zak to return to once he was declared dead instead of Trucy being anywhere in America he could trust her to be with Phoenix. To us it seems like a gamble but Zak was sure it would happen.



And yet Zak still took steps to protect Valant from the blame as Phoenix was making him look guilty, what a benevolent individual. Again beating Thalassa conjecture jumping to conclusions slippery slope yadda yadda yadda.
Also Uncle Brushel, his closest friend could take her.



That's a new...and very twisted way to look at it. I'm only gonna say I disagree maybe I'll hunt out some script evidence later.



Abandoning: Had no choice
Screwed over his lawyers: Never hired Kristoph didn't screw him really, Kristoph screwed Phoenix Zak's disappearance was nothing in comparison. Remorseless violent tendencies nothing more than a little boisterous bruiser, his assault on Olga was when pushed too far. You can't prove cheating means he wasn't going to expose the truth. I suppose the Magatama is fair play on liars? And Edgeworth using illegal evidence to find the truth isn't the same? You can't prove he's a jerk.



You keep presenting INTERPRETATIONS of canon facts while overlooking other things, such as his remorse when he meets Phoenix again which so many of you don't seem to care about, everything comes down to a matter of opinion THAT is why you shouldn't argue and should just accept your own belief.



Like I said if Kristoph hadn't battered him, he may have explained to Phoenix why he rendered their dealer unconscious and apologised when he returned to the basement from the phone call to the police.



Has the typical scene about cowboys in a saloon been forgotten? One cowboy finds another has an ace up his sleeve and tackles him over the table. The drunk in the corner had been looking for a fight and clubs the nearest over the head with his bottle before the saloon descends into chaos. It's a bar brawl, they can include weapons like chairs pool cues and all sorts of on hand weaponry. If the bottle had broken I'm not sure how dangerous it would be since it would break on contact meaning most of the damage would be blunt but it seems unlikely to happen when hitting someone blunt on the soft neck. I'm not saying he'd get away with it in court. Saying we can SEE why he would act that way and how it's more than "lol you suck at cheating *whack*".



Because he attacked (with in his eyes justification) a criminal? You may as well call most superheroes Jerks.



Again he was also passing on the rights to Gramayre magic to Trucy to help her earn more of a living with her magic skills and restore the Gramayre name to fame. It'd be like taking a child's pocket money and giving him £100 pounds in place of it. Besides there's no proof he would even reveal his victory. It would just be between him Olga and Phoenix. There's nothing to stop Zak keeping his victory a secret pride to himself and letting Phoenix keep his reputation. Bear in mind I don't support that last bit there fully....I just admit it's a possibility.



Again I'm sorry I meant Empathic but....my point of view comparison is fine.

He had loads of reason to belief she did, the plan failing is her fault that's no doubt there were better places to hide the card.
But you MUST consider why Zak would see she'd conned him. Pays a criminal in advance to cheat for him. Finds out the criminal has done nothing to cheat and made him look like a fool and also con him out of a substantial amount of money. See's the criminal is going to get away with it scotch free. Takes vengeance on the crook.

sure Phoenix had hidden the card away meaning it wasn't 100% Olga's fault (apart from the stupid place to plant the card) but Zak didn't know that. To him it would seem like he'd been cheated by a professional con artist.

After this I hate debating.

---

Let me answer a few repeated questions that have been asked by showing zak's actions and putting ourselves in zak's shows,ok?

first off,ask your self,why did zak escape the court,here are the following possible answers.

1)he wanted to protect valant
2)he selfleshly cared about himself
3)so wright would lose his badge

2 is inncorrect becouse zak hid the paper from his defense attorney where as if he cared about himself,it would have been easier to try to get the not guilty virdict instead,and 3 is also inncorrect becouse wright presenting the forged evidence wasn't in the plan and wright defending a guilty client with forged evidence is no diffrent than wright defending a client escaping the guilty virdict with forged evidence,in short,even if zak didn't escape,wright would have still lost his badge.

so the remaining one is 1,he got the guilty virdict and escaped it inorder to make himself look guilty to save valant from the court,now this'll raise the question.

why didn't he just accept the death sentence?

1)he didn't deserve to die
2)his death would make his 8 year old doughter really really sad
3)so he would ruin wright's career.
4)to harm trucy

3 is inncorrect since even if he didn't escape,wright would have lost his badge for presenting forged evidence,4 is simply impossible since look at the diffrence between scaping and dieing,escaping would give trucy hopes of meeting him again,and dieing would..........greatly saddenn her,so it's either 1 or 2 or both,he really didn't deserve death as he didn't kill magnifi and trucy would become greatly sad as she was 8 years old at the time.

then there's another question.

why didn't he discuss with wright about adopting trucy.

1)becouse he didn't care about trucy
2)becouse his plan would be found out,harming him or valant(and maybe trucy)
3)becouse he knew wright was a kind person

1 is inncorrect due to the fact that if zak cared about his friend,valant,even when he thought valant was the killer,then he must have cared about trucy.

3 is proven by the quotes i showed(now the posts are on the last page) so there was no need to tell wright,and 2 would ruin his plan,his plan's purpose was choosing the choice that inflicted as little damage to everyone as possible,he could have aimed for a not guilty virdict,he didn't want a choice involving anyone's death,that mean's he aimed for the choice and planned for the one that did the least damage,and if his plan failed then his prevention of harm to others and himself would fail and thus he and/or trucy and/or valant would be harmed.

now for the next question

why didn't he give valant the rights?

1)to hurt valant
2)so he would give it to trucy and make her life eisier.
3)becouse trucy's the rightfull hier to the rights

1 is impossible becouse,valant betrayed zak,and yet zak escaped into a hard life of running away to save valant from the courts,what.............you want zak to do valant another favour,only really really selfless person would do so,and even if zak wasn't "really reall selfless" he wouldn't be a jerk,but guess what,he did another favour after all,he wrote false conffesion to give wright to give zak,he even threw out his good name to save valant's..................what you want another favour from zak?????,i think valant already owes zak a lot already.

3 is perfectly justifiable,she is afterall the next rightfull owner for the rights, and 2 is a kind and helpfull choice so it's either 2 or 3 or both.

next off let's have another question.

Why did he try to expose wright's cheating?

1)to ruin wrights career.
2)becouse wright really cheated and it's the truth.

1 is incorrect,becouse zak had regretted how his action accidentally took part in wright's disbarrment,so ofcourse he wouldn't do it for the reason of inflicting further damage on wright becouse he already felt sorry for cousing wright enough harm despite the fact that it wasn't his foult,so the remaining choice is 2.

Why couldn't he keep wright's cheating a secret and not exposs it?

1)becouse revealing the truth is the right thing to do
2)becouse he wanted to harm wright

again,the explanation that eliminates 2 is the explanation that eliminated the answer 1 of the previeos question,besides,wright didn't show that godot killed misty becouse he wanted to damage godot,he showed it becouse it's the truth and exposing the truth is the right thing to do.

is using illigal methods to reveal wright's cheating a jerkish action?

1)yes
2)no



thus it must be 2.

is zak's hitting olga a right or wrong action?

1)right thing to do
2)wrong thing to do

i will admit and say that the answer is 2,zak shouldn't have hit olga.

does zak's action of hitting olga make him a jerk?

1)yes
2)no

for now,i will say no,for those who beleave in either answer,please read the next question(this question by itself will get us nowhere but almost fanfics and assumations from both sides)

why was zak's action of hitting olga jerkish/not jerkish?

1)it wasn't jerkish becouse he had a lapse in judgment.
2)it wasn't jerkish becouse olga deserved getting hit.
3)it was jerkish becouse zak intended to harm olga.
4)it was jerkish becouse zak intended murder.
5)it was jerkish becouse in simpl anger zak wanted to harm everyone around him.

first,i'll admit to 2 being incorrect as olga didn't deserve to get hit,3 is inncorrect becouse if zak wanted to harm olga,he would have waked her up and hit her again,or just hit her while she was uncconcious,but that didn't happen,4 is inncorrect becouse if he intended murder he would have kept hitting her untill her death,5 is inncorrect becouse he didn't hit wright afterwards and he didn't attack olga again,so the one that is left is 1.



I am sure that the prosecution's side(the ones trying to proove zak is a jerk) will feel great uneasness becouse i might have not added a few chioces,so regarding these questions,both defenders and offenders alike,add whichever choices to whichever questions you want to add to and I'll comment to it accordingly,for example.



In which I would answer 4 is inncorrect,becouse if he wanted to leave her he would have done so long ago without needing a hard life of running away from the police and the authorities.


also,if you feel that some answers i eliminated are actually the correct ones,then please give your counter-arguments,and pretty please don't ignore explanations i have given.

remember everyone,this is a friendly clean argument


Btw,will be quoting worf's post in a bit of time later ,so please don't feel ignored

---

I j... just don't know what to say about the above post...
and where to even begin with everything wrong and illogical about it...






To Pierre's posts:

JERKS have an inappropriate response and magnitude of response. Yes, normal people would feel injustice, even anger. They might yell at Olga, demand a refund, people with poor self-control might throw objects randomly in a tantrum, even hitting with fists would be a *more* normal reactive violence. Picking up the best available weapon and hitting with obvious intent to harm
was retaliation of an unjust order of magnitude. Or don't tell me you actually think Olga DESERVED that kind of 'punishment' for her *actual* crime or even her imagined one. And don't tell me "oh but Zak thought Olga cheated him on purpose" because that's EVEN WORSE, acting before you even know the ACTUAL transgression. [PJ]Why did he not hit her *again* or kill her? You think he'd think he'd get away with murder with Phoenix watching, then calling POLICE? The first time knocked her out, so clearly there ws no NEED for him to since he'd already imparted 'satisfactory' injury and another hit might kill her.



Hey let's make up another random 'theory'. Trucy did a magic trick of psychological hypnotic brainwashing to get Phoenix to adopt her which is why he did! It's got next to zero support in canon, and so does the theory 'Zak instructed Trucy to call Phoenix Daddy and go to be adopted by him.' Also Zak drugged Phoenix to take the case which 'proves' he's even more a of a jerk and how do i know he did cause Phoenix acted so weird and ooc and I know it's true because I SAID SO. [But at least Pierre has the sense to label his imagination as a 'theory'.]



Only thing? Then you just PROVED Zak didn't give a damn about causing Phoenix 'inconvenience'.

Even if Zak had 'no choice' to leave, he could have MADE REAL ARRANGEMENTS for Trucy instead of assuming Phoenix *might* organise something [or not]. Just make them 'in case I'm found guilty' nobody would think it suspicious and they'd kick in after he 'left' by default.

And Zak assuming Phoenix would even pass Trucy onto authorities was a stretch. Most *normal* [not even jerk] people would feel some level of resentment to Trucy after SHE gave him the forged evidence. If they weren't jerks they would recognise it wasn't her fault,but it might still discolour their ability to deal with her.

out of time again, I have such a backlog to reply to...

---

Phoenix wright was gratefull godot saved maya,but guess what,afterwards he proove's godot is the killer,yet again guess what,what wright did was the right thing.

now let's copy/paste it in a diffrent form,zak was gratefull wright adopted trucy,but guess what,afterwards he tried prooving wright is a cheater,yet again guess what,what zak did was the right thing.

no matter which way you look at it,revealing the truth is the right thing to do,even if you owed the person you'll harm by revealing the truth,your intention isn't harm,it's either doing the right thing,or being disturbed by the fact that the truth is hidden,both justifiable.



zak wasn't thinking,he had a lapse in judgment,ok,his action is wrong,he is guilty of assult,however,his action wasn't done due to jerkishness,he didn't intend harm,he was simply blinded by a super great moment of anger,in which afterwards,yes he was still angry(to an extend wright said he was "uncontrolable"),but atleast he was no longer as blinded as he was when he hit olga,again,there's no excuse for his angry action,but it wasn't a jerkish move.








why was it nessecary for wright to a exposs a man who saved a person he cared about?becouse it was the wright thing to do.

now right this sentence again,replace wright with zak,adopt a person he cared about with is taking care of his child,and becouse he is a jerk and bingo,you have a similiar event.

why is it nessecary for him to expose the man who is taking care of his child?,becouse it was the right thing to do.

or if you feal like it,replace "the right thing to do" with "didn't like how the truth was hidden" but so was edgeworth,and edgeworth's tendency of revealing the truth isn't jerkish and neither is zak's(except when zak made himself guilty twice to save valant,i admit)



Wright wasn't a cheat back then,and wright's cheating wasn't of bad intention,wright did it out of good intention,that's why a good-hearted person like wright could cheat and still be called good hearted,but just like a good-hearted person that did killed another in justified self-defense,the killer is still good hearted,but still is guilty for killing,wright is good hearted,but still is guilty of cheating.



shhh,you are scaring the children away with your words (which gives them bad impression about your attitude even if it isn't bad at all.......hey,most poeple unfortantly mis-judge others due to impression)

ummm,back to the argument at hand,he assulted someone due to a lapse in judgment,due to his oppretunity of revealing the truth being lost in the darkness for all eternity



his anger isn't 100% justifiable,and his action of hitting olga was wrong,but his action wasn't due to jerkish intentions.



sorry,but that wasn't a counter-argument......................you could have atleast said you would counter me later(like i did with Worf),not simply insult my statments,i didn't insult any of the zak prosecuting team's statments................did I (warning: P_J has very bad memory),I even assumed you guys didn't pay attention when you unintentionaly repeated arguments that had been countered with counters that weren't countered,rather than accusing you of intentionally ignoring us............................what,postive wrong assumation is better than negative wrong assumation,If my postive assumation is correct,then all's well,if my postive assumation is inncorrect,atleast i didn't unintentionally insult anyone *phew* ...................................or did I (P_J's failing memory take's effect)

---

How many times do we have to repeat ourselves. Zak was not 'revealing the 'truth'' because the framing was MAKING IT LOOK LIKE PHOENIX WAS COMMITTING A CRIME HE NEVER COMMITTED. The ACTUAL parallel is Kristoph 'punishing' Phoenix with the forged evidence '7 years ago'. Kristoph thought he'd expose Phoenix's 'incompetence' because he was jealous of Phoenix's reputation which he thought Phoenix didn't deserve because he relied so much on luck, bluffs, turnabouts and the help of talented females [Mia, Maya etc.] Kristoph 'revealed the 'truth'' by making it look like Phoenix habitually forged evidence, right? This is EXACTLY the same.

---

wrong becouse,zak was revealing the truth which was "wright was cheating",wether it was a legal method of showing that trucy helped him(which doesn't exist),or the illigal method of showing that wright used cards(which was the only way............i think),both would have shed us to a certain light and that is "wright was cheating",the first choice was the better choice,but without evidence,most poeple or more likly no one will beleave zak's testomony and zak will thus need evidence,but by the fact that trucy didn't come it became impossible for him to show evidence that wright cheated threw her,so he instead tried showing that wright cheated by using cards.

yes,zak might have only showed the summery of the truth(without the details),but it was either that,or the truth being lost in the darkness,the diffrence between the crime of wright cheating by trucy and wright cheating by cards isn't so big,and your example doesn't stand becouse the diffrences are too great,show an example like,person #1 stole something,and person #2 used illigal methods to show that #1 stole a diffrent thing that yet had the same price as what #1 had really stolen.

---

True maybe some people would consider it an overreaction but we've never known how much Olga charges. If she is a professional criminal underworld dealer it might be pretty expensive to hire her since the payouts can be massive for rigging a poker table. Furthermore Zak might have had a drink or two. Also he might be a type A personality in accordance with Friedman and Rosenman's personality theory meaning he is aggressive hot headed and with a high blood pressure therefore more prone to acts of violence. I don't think Olga deserved that type of punishment...but I know the full context, Zak didn't and I can see why he did think she deserved that.



Haha exactly, the canon doesn't really indicate anything here. There's nothing definite to indicate Trucy was neglected or anything to indicate she was overly loved. I'd say it's entirely down to interpretation here. Being magicians they'd know how to manipulate an audience so I don't think it's entirely unplausable for Zak to instruct Trucy to charm her way into Phoenix's home. But exactly the fact that it is only 'plausible' is not definite still I suggest that nothing in this area is definite and is all down to interpretation.



True Zak did say that, but he still didn't ruin Phoenix with his disappearing act. Maybe if Phoenix hadn't needed to use the forged diary page then Zak escaping would have made him look guilty (drawing attention away from Valant) and bad for Phoenix but it didn't turn out that way. Still Zak did show regret for his actions later on.
On the day: Trucy made him hesitate
In hindsight seven years later: He realised how much it bothered Phoenix too.



There's nothing to indicate Zak hadn't made some form of at least temporary arrangement for Trucy....she went to Phoenix well nourished and clean clothed nothing would suggest she'd been roughing it for 2 weeks.

However Zak didn't know about the forged evidence beyond seeing it and not identifying what it was when Trucy gave it to him. I'll admit it did confuse me how Phoenix could just overlook the fact that Trucy had passed him the evidence that destroyed his career....I guess he assumed it wasn't her fault? All the same Zak didn't know that the paper would ruin Phoenix's career and thus possibly sway Phoenix's opinion of Trucy and by the time events had unfolded there was no going back.

---

^ How about how did Phoenix felt after Zak had escaped the courtroom. It made Phoenix look really bad. Even worse, Phoenix could be accused of helping Zak plan the escape. I'm sure Klavier probably did accuse Phoenix of exactly that. Even if Trucy said Phoenix wasn't involved in the escape, would anyone believe her?

wether zak escaped or not wouldn't have made a diffrence on the fact that wright lost his badge,using forged evidence is the couse as there's almost no diffrence between a client that got the guilty virdict and a client that escaped the guilty virdict,the main accusation that got wright to lose his badge was presenting the forged evidence,not what the public would speculate about wright helping zak escape.

---

Don't be ridiculous these are lawyers we are talking about they wouldn't accept anything without proof. Most people had their eyes on Phoenix the entire time Zak was preparing his escape. Besides Phoenix intended to prove his client innocent (to the point that it seemed like he forged evidence to do so) and the escape must have occurred not long after he was disbarred. He wouldn't have the time or knowhow to help with such a stunt. Plus Phoenix was already the worst excuse of a lawyer there was. His badge was already doomed as a forgin-cheatin attorney which already made Zak look guilty since his attorney would cheat to get him sent away safely. The only thing Zak's disappearance would have done is reinforce the already strong belief that Phoenix is a cheater and defender of the guilty. It was nothing in comparison to the damage dealt.

---

I don't even know what to say anymore. It doesn't matter how many times we try to explain the flaws in your logic, you just keep repeating the same things. D=

Guys, I'm not trying to personally attack anyone. I'm really not. But by saying things like "Zak isn't a jerk for hitting Olga" and implying that since in his eyes she "deserved it" so it's okay, then you're essentially justifying assault. You're justifying a man hitting a woman, who was no threat to him, with a dangerous blunt object. Every abuser, attacker, and killer in the world has thought that their victim "deserved" it. That doesn't mean it's okay. It was not okay for Zak to hit Olga, no matter how much money he may have lost to her services. (Which btw, we don't even know how much money he spent, if any! For all we know, he promised to pay her after the cheat succeeded. Or promised her fame for helping defeat Phoenix. There is no canon proof that he paid a lot of money for her services)

Second, even if Zak was blinded in a fit of rage, the fact that his instinctual reaction was to hit her with a dangerous blunt object is a jerkish reaction. Why do we teach children not to hit each other, even when they're mad? Why do we teach them to use their words? Hitting someone is never acceptable. As has been said, even blinded with rage, Zak could have just thrown things. He could have even just shoved her! Hell, punching her would have been better (though still a jerkish thing to do). Assault is illegal for a REASON, and assault with a weapon is even WORSE for a reason.

Third, your claim that Zak "held back" from hurting Olga too badly is a direct contradiction to your claim that he was "blinded by rage". If you're so blinded by rage that you can't think straight, then you do not have the mental clarity to think about holding back. Either Zak was blinded by rage and didn't think about what he was doing, or he KNEW what he was doing but decided to hold back. It's one or the other. It CANNOT be both. So which was it?

Fourth, a concussion IS an injury and in some cases CAN be fatal. Olga is very lucky that Zak didn't kill her. But he COULD have. It is jerkish to do something that can endanger someone's life, even if you did not intend to REALLY hurt them. For example: if someone pointed a loaded gun at you, that is a jerkish thing to do. Even if they had NO intention of shooting the gun and killing you, it is still a dangerous thing for them to do, and thus jerkish. Even if Zak only meant to hurt Olga and not kill her, the fact remains that had he hit her just centimeters higher or lower, he might have killed her. This is NOT a risk worth taking, and Zak is a jerk for doing it.

Fifth, even IF Zak was taking on Phoenix to "reveal the truth" (which is never stated nor even implied in canon), he sacrificed the moral high ground by CHEATING. This is NOT the same as Phoenix exposing Godot in court because Godot really was guilty! Phoenix used legal methods to expose him. If Zak was really out to do this for the greater good, he would not have hired a criminal to do so! He was FRAMING Phoenix for a crime Phoenix was not committing! We have no evidence to suggest that Phoenix had ever used extra aces to win poker games. And even IF Phoenix had cheated in the past, the point remains that he was not cheating at that moment, and Zak was framing him for something he didn't do. If Phoenix had framed Godot for a murder he didn't commit (regardless of whether or not he had committed murder in the past) then THIS would be equivalent and be a jerkish move. But Godot WAS guilty and Phoenix did not have to lie or cheat to convict him. Zak was CHEATING. Cheating, no matter your pretentiously pious reasons, is a jerk move. And when you say this logic would mean Edgeworth was a jerk for presenting false evidence? Guess what? YES HE WAS! Edgeworth WAS a jerk. That's the point of his character! He used to be a jerk, and he saw the light thanks to Phoenix. And Edgeworth STILL behaves like a jerk at times despite bettering himself.

Sixth, Zak punches Brushel, and the game never even IMPLIES that they are friendly punches. On the contrary, Zak uses them as a threat, and Brushel doesn't dare punch him back. It's safe to assume these punches HURT Brushel, if such a nosy reporter is willing to vacate the room at the mere mention of being punched. From this we can ascertain that Zak is a man prone to violence. His fits are not blind rages. Zak is a violent man period.

Seventh, Zak made no arrangements for Trucy beforehand. You say she was well fed and clean clothed? We don't KNOW this. The sprite doesn't change. Phoenix doesn't comment on how well fed and clean clothed she is. We have no evidence that she was well or poorly taken care of for those 2 weeks. What's more, it's likely she was in police custody ANYWAY, as they don't let abandoned children wander around court houses alone. Zak is a JERK for abandoning his daughter and not even bothering to arrange a place for her to stay. No, being kind hearted does not automatically mean Phoenix would adopt Trucy. There are MANY kind hearted people who do not want children of their own. Some people just don't wish to be parents, especially of other people's children. And guess what? in PW1-3, the games imply that Phoenix IS NOT GOOD WITH KIDS. He's flustered with Cody, he's flustered with Pearl, and he's even flustered with Maya at times. Phoenix was in no position to raise a child and was not looking to do so. If Zak really could "read" Phoenix by competing with him, as you claim, then he must have picked up on the fact that Phoenix was not fatherhood material. What's more, Zak didn't even ASK Phoenix. Dumping your child on someone else without so much as asking them, regardless on how willing they'd be to do so, is a JERK thing to do! Children are a HUGE responsibility and a heavy emotional/financial/psychological/even physical drain. Not asking Phoenix before leaving his daughter with him is a JERK MOVE. Not making pre-planned arrangements for Trucy is a JERK MOVE.

Eighth, Zak had NO REASON to expose Phoenix. Even IF Phoenix was cheating, which is debatable (there is no official rule in poker that says you can't read people's tells, and in fact this is a big part of what professional poker players rely on), he wasn't hurting anyone. He was taking whatever job he could get, however questionable, in his desperation to keep Trucy fed and supported. Phoenix' reputation was SHATTERED thanks to Zak's case. Finding work could not have been easy. WHAT POSSIBLE REASON did Zak have to further break the reputation of the man who had already struggled to raise his daughter for seven years? No, it is not the same as what Phoenix did to Godot. Godot committed a MURDER. This is an actual CRIME. A VIOLENT crime, at that. And if Phoenix had not exposed Godot, some innocent person (probably Iris or Maya) would have gone to jail in Godot's place. What Phoenix did, he did to protect the innocent. What Zak did protected no one. What Zak did had no positive whatsoever. If Zak had succeeded, all he would have done was lost Phoenix his job, and by extension, Trucy her livelihood. And again, even if Phoenix deserved it, Zak did not go about it in an honorable way. He hired a CRIMINAL to CHEAT Phoenix. He tried to FRAME Phoenix for something Phoenix did not DO. THIS IS A JERK MOVE.

Zak Gramarye is a jerk. And please stop justifying the fact that he hit Olga. This is offensive to anyone who has ever been a victim to violence! D= Attackers will always claim that you deserved it, or that they didn't know what they were doing because they were blinded by the heat of the moment. Attackers always have excuses. But it is NOT okay. Victims, regardless of the quality of their character, should not be blamed when they are victimized! Just because someone may work as a stripper--and even if they did something to aggravate someone, like steal their wallet--does not mean they deserve to be raped! Olga may have been a crook--and to Zak it may have looked like she cheated him--but she did not deserve to be bludgeoned to unconsciousness!

---

*Sigh* I get the feeling that if Olga was a guy you'd all see this differently.

Firstly Olga is a professional dealer for poker. The payouts could be in the hundreds of thousands for a successful scam involving her. She would cost a substantial amount of money, whether paid before or after he still expected her to carry out a service and she didn't. She would not work for fame....revealing that he had cheated to beat Phoenix Wright with Olga Orly's help would vanquish that fame completely.

We know the full context of the events but Zak didn't so we shouldn't judge him for his actions, he had no way of knowing what would happen. It's not that my opinion is wrong we can all acknowledge how Zak could have interpreted the situation. It's in our beliefs, I can see how Zak would have made the reasonable judgement that Olga conned him and took vengeance for it. It's not equivalent to abuse it was a professional agreement. I don't consider him a jerk for it.

You could look at the basic facts that Zak hit a defenceless woman but that's oversimplifying things.

Also 'blinded by rage' also known as 'seeing red' is generally considered the point when you are so infuriated you DO use acts of violence. This might just be down to interpretation of the term but I consider blinded by rage the point where you no longer care about the consequences and resort to violence as a direct output of that rage. You seem to think violence is unacceptable at this stage but it's purely a opinionated thing.

I wouldn't put Olga's survival down to Zak 'holding back' as blinded by rage does overrule it since Zak no longer cares about the output and is desperately seeking to output his anger. However the canon seems to contradict itself here. Zak is strong as confirmed by Brushel so it doesn't make sense why more damage was dealt. Don't get on at us for this the point is the writers fault. Maybe Olga has an especially thick skull though really it hit her in the neck so....an especially strong neck.

Zak was blinded by rage for a reasonable cause, almost killing Olga (debatable as she seemed fine). I would not consider him a jerk as it was out of his power to control his rage. An aggressive mental patient in an asylum has a fit of madness, he is out of control, he stabs a doctor and clubs a nurse in an attempt to control him. Does this make him a jerk? No it's outside his control. Zak clearly has anger issues outside his control possibly worth psychological examination. He cannot be held responsible.

Also Phoenix did cheat....he brought his borderline-psychic daughter along to tell him when his opponent was bluffing and when he wasn't. It's essentially like having someone spying on your opponents cards. He also cheated to bring a cheating opponent to justice by forging the Ace that would prove Kristoph's downfall. Also my logic means that he wasn't a jerk for what he DID there. As a person sure sometimes he's a little cruel but he's not a jerk because he used illegal evidence (not false) to discover the truth in the end of AAI. Even then I don't really consider him a jerk.

You said....the sprite doesn't change....from well fed and well clothed. Capcom aren't above showing how characters have fallen on tough times (Valant), 2 weeks of absolute poverty would be enough to kill Trucy yet she shows up healthy and clean clothed. This indicates that she was taken care of well enough. Also what makes you say the police custody was likely?

Zak BELIEVED Phoenix was more than kind hearted, that's just one aspect of him, he believed Phoenix wouldn't turn Trucy away like that by claiming to 'know him' through poker. As dubious as this sounds in game Zak's theory of understanding someone has proven effective as Phoenix did adopt Trucy. He fully believed it would occur that way as well. In a way he had made arrangements and even if real life shows it as an incredibly risky manouver, Zak and Trucy believed fully it would work and it did. Therefore Zak is not a jerk for leaving his daughter as he fully believed he had found a 100% way for her to be cared for, whether we believe it's not 100% or not is irrelevant as Zak's plan came to fruition.

I know bluffing and predicting bluffing are not cheating but having someone watch for bluffing (like Trucy did) is.



Also for the record, if some stripper stole my wallet she'd be perfectly entitled to at least one punch in the face if she didn't return the wallet straight away though rape is a bit much.

---

I didn't say olga deserved getting hit,nor do the say that the action is justifide,and i am sure Pierre was saying such a thing then he no longer is as one thing i can say,right now i don't think pierre is saying olga deserved it.



The bottle was nearby and grabbing and swinging it in one swift motion didn't have much more delay than punching her,and I am not saying the action is justifide,I am saying the didn't happen due to jerkishness as at the time,zak had a lapse in judgment,he couldn't think,he was incapable of thinking,he wasn't intending to bring harm,again the action isn't justifide and he would have still been guilty for assult according to the law,but the action didn't happen due to jerkishness.



now that i think about it,yeah that is a troubling contradiction,despite the fact that he have one fact from the game which is series damage,the only explanation i can think of is that he unconciously held back,if he was completly blinded he would have used full force which would have dealt much more damage to the back of the neck,but fact is even a day's lasting injury didn't happen,but he couldn't have been hitting conciously becouse if he could think then he would know that assult lead's to arrest and wouldn't attack and settle for screaming at olga or throwing things around,so with the things shown in the came,it must be both,and the only explanation it's both is that he held back unconciously,i may not have any direct evidence to this,but by proccess of elimintation it was the only remaining explanation that remained,unless i messed up or forgot another explanation



please don't compare a blunt object with a gun,atleast give an example of a baseball bat or nightstick or something similiar to the bottle as a blunt object,and no knifes please.

He had no intention of hurting her,he was completly blinded and wasn't thinking,meaning he didn't intend on putting anyone in danger,ergo,he didn't mean to take a risk that endangered olga.

also,I have prooven in that in the ace attorney world the concution isn't necceserally a lasting injury



and the force wasn't enough to even give olga a day's lasting injury,so with that amount of force,anywhere else on the head wouldn't kill,although i don't need to proove that,but the more info,the closer we are to the truth.



I wasn't saying edgeworth was a jerk,i said edgeworth's action of using illigal evidence wasn't a jerkish action,oh and wright gave apollo forged evidence.



The game also doesn't imply that The number of punches are huge,or the power of the punches are that great,besides,when a guy like sparke brushel keep's following zak and annoying him,and there are the times when in the middle of the annoyance zak simply loses it and punches brushel,zak must have tried talking brushel away,it's not like he just punches everyone that gives slight annoyance to him.



she was in police custody,as you said,and it's becouse the police held her that she couldn't go to wright,after all,when wright sent her in she asked him to adopt her,that mean's zak told trucy to ask wright to adopt her,as for wright's inabilaty with kid's,her's my explanation,wright changed since he was flustered around kid's and at the time was able to adopt,what's my proof?,the fact that wright adopted trucy.

also please read this



zak couldn't discuss the adoption with wright and didn't need to do it,if there's an action you can't and don't need to do then not doing the action isn't jerkish due to disabilaty.

as for emotional/financial/psychological/even physical drain,emotionally trucy is a sweat girl that is cheefull,psychological,please explain how psychological drain,physical,it's not like trucy's helping wright with a few physical stuff,as for the financial,zak didn't know wright would lose his badge,and trucy was helping wright earn money.

look,it was either that,or valant's death sentence.

a doughter being left to a diffrent and possibly harder life,or a friends death,the doughter's more important,but the death is more tragic.



but Wright really cheated since wasn't him that was reading what his oppenents were thinking,it was trucy,and she used magic.



and the summerry of what wright did was, "he cheated",poeple will not really pay attention to the method,and the summery of what zak's plan would have revealed, "he cheated",not only that,but wright gave apollo a forged card,despite the fact that it wasn't this card that was in the room,it was another,yet that detail didn't matter much,what mattered was "kristof killed zak",and when wright gave apollo a representation of a letter in case 4-4,kristof didn't have that letter,the representation only showed what was written in the actuall letter,yet the main point was, "kristof killed Mr.Misham"

it was either showing only the summery of the truth,or the truth being lost in void and remaining hidden in the darkness,zak wasn't able show the whole 100% detailed truth,so instead he showed the summery of the truth,better than keeping the truth hidden.

as for hiring a cheat,i'll once again use the example of wright giving apollo the forged evidence,both are cheating,but both were almost the only ways possible to showing the truth



and if it's one thing we learned from the last case of AJ,it was that the law isn't flawless,no i am not saying you should break the rules all the time,or that breaking the rules is always a good thing,but if you are incapable of doing a good deed by legal methods,then it's ok to do a good deed by illigal methods.



we are not saying wether olga deserved or not(and i admit she didn't) or wether zak's action was right or wrong(and i admit it was wrong) but the action didn't result from jerkishness as i explained earlier in this post,I could be mistaken,but that can only be determined by more counter-arguments.

---

The escape happened right after Zak was found guilty. Phoenix wasn't disbarred yet. And the Worst excuse of an attorney? You're saying Winston Payne would have done better than Phoenix! Yeah, I know he's a procecutor, but you get my point. That makes me laugh. Might as well take a defense attorney appointed by the state then. It didn't matter anyway, Zak would have run no matter who the attorney was.

He was, disbarring would have happened when he presented the fake evidence. Maybe not officially then as he still had his badge but the trial was over immediately meaning than in a practical sense he was disbarred.

---

Exactly,besides rydus65,in the law's eyes,what would have been the diffrence between.

"a defense attorney that used forged evidence to defend a client that got the guilty virdict"

and

"a defense attorney that used forged evidence to defend a client that escaped the guilty virdict"

both are guilty.

and when pierre talked bad stuff about wright,he wasn't speaking through the facts,he was speaking through the courts eyes,how they viewed wright at the time,wright is a great attorney,but got tricked,that's speaking through the facts,but the courts couldn't see the facts at the time,he's not saying wright is a bad forgin attorney,he's saying the court was seeing wright as a bad forgin attorney.

---

Ughh way to much has gone on...




I don't think you understand the difference in the situation. It was Phoenix's JOB to expose Godot for the murder AND it was to save Maya from getting blamed. With Zak, he didn't need to expose Phoenix,he would get nothing of it except fame which in it's own is jerky. You can make up this bull that it was for the "truth" but the more logical reason is that Zak really wanted to expose Phoenix for the fame.



Uh huh.



I don't even know how to correctly respond to this. You contradict yourself by saying "he wasn't intending harm, he just picked up a bottle and hit her because he was angry" I'm sorry but if you're so angry you go and attack someone, you're intending harm. And we are saying his act makes him a jerk, not that the act itself was caused because of being a jerk(though I'm sure that added to it)


There is so many things wrong with this post....
1. You claim it didn't even have a day's lasting injury: YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THAT. You're not a doctor and you clearly have absolutely no idea of human anatomy, like what Icarus said. For all we know, she didn't even go to the hospital because she wanted to hide the injury, she sure looked like it still irritated her at the trial.

2. You aren't in Zak's head, you can't keep claiming he was holding back just because YOU want to believe he would. The neck can take a blow and not break. We can't determine if he hit his hardest or not because were never shown directly, we got the basic facts which were: He blew up over his cheating plan failing so he decides to attack a harmless women with a WEAPON that could have shattered and done far worse damage.




A gun is a fine comparison, you can shoot someone in the face and they can survive, you can hit someone with a bat and they can survive, you can also hit the wrong locations and kill them.

Whether or not a gun is more lethal doesn't change the fact that the outcome can still be the same.

And once again STOP saying he had not intention of hurting her, he picked up the bottle, took a swing at her and hurt her and even after the event he was still freaking out in which phoenix left to call the cops.

With AAI you also have to take into account that Edgeworth was hit in the back of the neck, a place usually used to knock someone unconscious whereas olga was hit on the side of the neck.

---

That doesn't change the fact that showing the truth was the right thing to do,as for the reason,it wasn't fame that zak wanted,otherwise he would have just beaten him without cheating,zak was annoyed that an attorney with not much poker skills had the great fame of being undefeatable for 7 years,that is competitivness in which he doesn't like how the truth was hidden,zak said it himself when he talked to wright(without mentioning the plan of cheating ofcourse),I'll get the exact words later from gamfaqs,but one thing is for sure,the fact that the truth was hidden bothered zak as much as it bothered edgeworth(only diffrence,for zak it's poker),and thus zak aimed to uncover the truth,just like edgeworth



and no,his competitivness doesn't reach a jerkish level in which he is greatly angered by losing becouse he didn't have much problem when wright defeated zak,that was fair and square,but wright having his win streak for seven years using trucy's help and special abilaties,that isn't fair and square.



He was explaining why zak's lapse in judgment happened,not why zak's action is justified.



Zak wasn't able to think,thus,he couldn't think of a reason,thus,he had no motive,thus,he didn't intend harm since there was no motive,and having no motive isn't justified,but in this case,isn't jerkish becouse the lapse of judgment is the inabilaty to think.

And If the act wasn't coused due to jerkishness,then zak isn't a jerk,a jerk doesn't do a jerkish action,and if the action wasn't done due to jerkishness,then zak can't be accused a jerk from said action,your argument's summery for the action of hitting olga is as follows "zak is a jerk for hitting olga" , and if i am able to proove that the action isn't done due to jerkishness(which depend's on your abilaty to counter my argument,and seeing how far we went,you really have great abilaty) then he can't be accused a jerk for that action,I guess I'll have to wait and see if there'll be another counter-argument before i jump to any conclusions.



sorry but
1. even unharmed witnesses have nervous habits,and i am not a doctor,but according to the game's dialogue,olga wasn't aware of her nervous habit untill apollo pointed it out,that mean's she no longer felt pain,if she did she would be aware of her hand touching where she's still hurt,but she isn't,thus she was no longer hurt,and why the nervous habit there then?,becouse as apollo said,it was an unconncious memory.

2.I beleave my claim was "he held back unconciously",so even zak himself wasn't aware of holding back,one thing i know for sure,the force exerted with a weapon to not even deal a day's lasting injury on the back of the neck can't do anything series with the same force and weapon to anywhere else on the head area,let alone death,as for attacking a defensless woman,i'll once again point out the lapse in judgment,the inabilaty to think.



you can't comparison a gun with a bottle just becouse both can deal damage at a point and can kill at another,the gun is a weapon that requirs a simple pull of the trigger,and the bullet will fly at high speed and inflict great damage on the flesh of whatever victem it hit.

the bottle however is a weapon dependant on the force exerted from the swing and is a blunt object that can't pierce through the body.

ergo,the bottle and a gun are nothing alike unless the gun is swung as a blunt object,thus you can't use such a comparison just becouse both are dangerous weapons,if the gun is many times more dangerous and more lethal.

and i guess i might as well make use of copy/paste for the intention part

"Zak wasn't able to think,thus,he couldn't think of a reason,thus,he had no motive,thus,he didn't intend harm since there was no motive,and having no motive isn't justified,but in this case,isn't jerkish becouse the lapse of judgment is the inabilaty to think"

as for his anger afterwards,anger isn't necceserally jerkish,and as long as his lapse of judgment didn't last for a long time,and his anger state didn't couse anyone harm(unlike his lapse of judgment state that happened beforehand),then being angry isn't jerkish as long as it didn't last for a longtime,but then again,i don't know(yet) if zak was going to stay angry for a very long period of time had he lived but then again there isn't an evidence to the contrary either(atleast,my unskilled self hasn't found any),besides,wright called the police becouse law-wise,zak commited assult and deserved arrest.



Please use the spoiler thing for the sake of the guy's that didn't play AAI yet

---

Mary did something. The thing she did was not caused by niceness. Therefore, Mary is proven to be NOT a nice person.
...As you can see, your statement is illogical.

And if you're 'not thinking' response is to cause potentially fatal harm WITH WEAPONS to someone who's no threat to you or anyone else, yes, you're also a JERK. This isn't a tantrum to release anger. This is clear intent to BADLY harm, and carry it to its precise and exact execution. Even without the assault, Zak's other repeated actions and deliberate portrayal mark him as a jerk. The assault gets the most discussion here because defending it is the most offensive.


Uh. Zak probably feared he'd LOSE if he didn't cheat. Remember, Phoenix is the only one other than Magnifi who ever BEAT HIM, which he did without Trucy.

And stop trying to claim Edgeworth's 'evidence' was anything like Zak. It wasn't a court so Edgeworth wasn't breaking any rule by using it, he only would have if he presented it in COURT.


So, you committed shoplifting and you got away with it, so let's 'expose' a summary of the 'truth' by framing you for murder! It's another crime, right, so it's EXACTLY THE SAME!

Your analogy is WORTHLESS. Trucy didn't use illegal methods to help Phoenix win. The sole rule Phoenix broke is you're not supposed to have a second person play the game with you, it's supposed to be 1 vs 1. Zak implied Phoenix RIGGED 7 YEARS OF POKER GAMES. All Trucy did was read the opponents' body language, WHICH IS AN ACTUAL ALLOWED POKER TACTIC. She didn't see the cards, she didn't change the odds, she didn't change the cards, she can't mindread, as proof, nobody mind reads in Perceive! In fact, the same result of most games probably would have happened if Trucy had just played poker and Phoenix was absent. And as for 'Gramarye Eyes', Apollo uses them IN COURT, are we going to call for him being disbarred for cheating?

Implying Phoenix DELIBERATELY RIGGED the poker games could quite literally ruin HIS ENTIRE LIFE. Can you genuinely not conceive the difference in the public's perception of these two 'crimes' or are you just disagreeing for the sake of it.

Implying he used Trucy to help him play the otherwise legal game would probably end his poker career or get him fired from Borscht Bowl, but it wouldn't throw such a dampener on his other prospects outside poker.

And stop pretending Zak's motive was 'exposing the truth'. It wasn't any more than that was Kristoph's intention to set Phoenix up with forged evidence.


You're so damn uncreative. Of course it wasn't 'impossible' for Zak to reveal the actual truth, if that had been what he wanted. I bet his 'friend' Brushel could have easily spread that Phoenix used Trucy as a 'partner' in big games, or myriad other possibilities.


Actually, it did. If Zak didn't disappear so suspiciously there might have been more hope Phoenix could claim he was set up with the forgery. Zak SAW the page and knew that it was given to Trucy. If he'd actually wanted to HELP Phoenix, he could have made a statement to this effect. As it was Zak disappearing make it look MORE suspicious, if it hadn't happened there was more of a chance some of the Bar Assn might listen to Phoenix's side of the story. No, Zak didn't deliberately try to make the whole disbarring worse for Phoenix, but it was another consequence of his selfish action. He USED Phoenix, even if the forgery hadn't happened.


Well it's ..disturbing you think you're actually carrying out a coherent 'debate' of an issue by recontextualising it into nonsensical 'multiple choice options' with 'questions' to which the proper answer is most usually 'none of the above'. And then go so far as to say 'I decided idiotic unsubstantiated assumption from my imagination eliminates A, [even when it doesn't] so that PROVES it MUST be B by default!' when reality does not constrain to any of your stupid A/B/C 'options', for starters. And that you think this is somehow valid in any sense, and that you have the misapprehension you have EVER 'countered' or 'proven' anything. I mean, if that's supposed to be only some explanation of your own personal mental model on this issue, fine. But if you think it's an illustration of the actual issue,ugh, you really need to...


Trucy is a robot is she? She does nothing except what Zak has told her to do? Trucy asking something isn't evidence Zak told her to do it. And Phoenix is even showing his inability to relate to kids in the FLASHBACK TRIAL when he meets Trucy. ['What the heck is she talking about?'] The fact you have no comprehension how difficult, draining, expensive and consuming raising ANY kid would be scares me.

Ugh I'll never catch up with this topic.

---

I meant that if the action isn't jerkish,then you can't use that action to accuse zak of jerkishness.

sorry,but if zak was only angry,and if zak was thinking,then he would have realized that his assult would to his arrest and would give him more loss than gain,thus it had to be an attack without thinking,without motive,without intend of harm,without clear intent to BADLY harm,and his repeated action of getting angry makes him a jerk,does that mean all poeple who become angry are jerks?,he became angry becouse,as we say in the gameover, "and thus the truth was lost for all eternity",zak's attacking a person that posed no threat is only enough to proove that it was assult that desserved for him to be arrested,but he had no intent,and when i say no intent i mean no intent so please don't say "he clearly intent harm" without showing how(unless you did and i didn't notice ),i have prooved that he couldn't have attacked her while he was thinking straight,or rather,thinking at all due to lapse in judgment,in which the only thing left is that he had a lapse in judgment with no intend to harm,either proove that my proof (of eliminating the possibilaty of him hitting while thinking straight) is wrong,or show us another possibilaty.



sorry,but if zak was cheating to win,he would have used a completly diffrent method of cheating,and that is olga giving zak the cards with wright being unaware,besides,zak is competitive with poker as wright had mentioned,zak values his poker playing abilaties and play's fair inorder to defeat his opponents,and the reason why he was upset about wrights reputation is that it was unfair with poker,just like how edgeworth is upset with the truth not being revealed.

as for edgeworth's usage of illigal evidence,it still was breaking the law,and want an example of breaking the rules,wright tricking apollo into breaking the rule by presenting forged evidence,but unlike kristof,did it for a good couse.



that wasn't what i said,the sumery between getting help and using cards is "cheating",while cheating while shoplifting and murder are unrelated,now change your example to "So, you committed shoplifting and you got away with it, so let's 'expose' a summary of the 'truth' by framing you for shoplifting of stealing item(s) of aprroxamitly the same price as the one(s) you really stole!"

the common point i used wasn't becouse it was a crime,it was becouse it was both cheating,remember that i wrote "the summery was phoenix wright cheated" and not "the summery was phoenix wright commited a crime"



you said it yourself,it's supposed to be 1 vs 1,and wright didn't use his own abilaties,it was trucy that used the abilaties,giving wright help in something he couldn't do,bottom line is, "without trucy's help,wright would have lost",seeing as how poker is 1 on 1 and how trucy's help earn's wright his victories,then adding them mean's that wright was cheating,and please don't put words like "so you are saying that 'without his poker skills,he would lose' and thus using poker skills is cheating" or something like that,i just fear that you'll put words in my mouth again ,what i said was adding "the games are one on one" + "trucy's help is what earned wright most of his victories and his winning streak" = wright cheated.



that is cheating to earn his 7 year old streek,and the other is also cheating to earn his 7 year old streek,both are unfair plays inorder to win even games he would have lost otherwise,thus approximatly the same puplic effect.



sorry,but zak himself told wright about his uneasness and displeasure of an attorney running around with unfair fame due to cheating,and unlike the wright of seven years ago,the wright back then didn't forge evidence,but the wright of 7 years later cheated.

besides,zak didn't show any signs of anger or sadness at all when wright defeated him seven years ago and even hired wright when he discovered wright is a kind person ,so the reason couldn't be of jealusy,it wasn't becouse wright defeated zak,but becouse wright earned fame through cheating.



The public won't beleave him without proof,zak needed proof.



sorry but,what would have made the courts beleave that wright was set up,with wright being the only one saying the words,the courts won't beleave trucy as she is the defendant's doughter,and thus the doughter of wright's client,besides,there was nothing that pointed to wright being accused of helping in zak's escape,and as wright stated,the main move that lost him his badge was presenting the forged evidence.

And zak didn't "USE" wright,for the 5th time,wright presenting the forged evidence wasn't in the plan and was unexpected to zak as much as it was to everyone but kristof and klavier,and after wright presented the forged evidence,zak had 2 choices,escape as planned,or take the guilty virdict.

for arguments sake,i'll pretend zak choosing the death penalty would save wright from disbarment,now one of zak's choices lead's to his death(despite the fact that he didn't deserve it due to not being the one who commited the murder),and the other lead's to wright losing his career(despite the fact that he didn't deserve it due to not knowing of the evidence being forged),a choice lead's to death,and another lead's to lossing a job,which is worse,dying or losing your job.

if the choices would have led to either person's death,then zak sacrificing his life to save wright's life would be the right move,but her,i'll ask you,is it worth it for zak to risk his life in order to safe another person from losing his job.

oh and zak's death would have also lead to trucy's great sadness.



i didn't jump to conclusions,i am sure that at the end of my post i had offered you guys to add other possibilaties if other posibilaties remained,or proove my elimination of some choices to be wrong,yes it's from the top of my head,but unless another possibilaty is shown,the remaining possibilaty stands,i simply showed i diffrent way of arguing and a diffrent angle of approuch,again i didn't conclude anything,i simply said something along the lines "as long as it's the only remaining possibilaties then it's the right explanation,in which,you have the free will to add other possibilaties,my statment wasn't "i am correct",my statment was "unless i am countered,i am correct"



"what the heck is she talking about" isn't a show of inability with kids,but then again,maybe he said it after a few dialogues in which it would show inabilaty...............................I'll go check the script at gamefaqs later to avoid making mistakes or false accusation.

also,trucy mentioned her father talking about wright,not only that,bue when zak met wright 7 years later,he knew trucy was with him,thus zak knew beforehand that trucy went to wright,ergo,zak must have instructed trucy to go to wright,or trucy told zak by herself that she wanted to live with wright if she had to be adopted inorder for zak to do his escape act which would help in rescuing valant from the death sentence.



Patience,arguments shouldn't couse anger or fatigue as long as there aren't any personal insults involved

---

But no. When Zak hit Olga, he thought he'd get away with it. We keep saying Olga COULD sue for assault, but Zak knew she probably WOULDN'T,like most people victims of those crimes. She's unconscious, Zak is leaving after, and SHE hardly wants to admit to the world her JOB is rigging poker games unless forced. Shadi Smith isn't even a real person. If he's evaded police this long as a suspected murderer, they probably won't even FIND him to bring him to trial for something like an assault.

Zak also thinks he's justified to hit Olga. In this mindset, his momentary 'assumption' is that justice agrees with him, not 'oh no the courts might think I'm wrong.' Phoenix didn't call police till after he's been rampaging for a while, the possibility of arrest for assault probably never entered his mind. This doesn't mean he's 'not thinking' this means he doesn't think he's doing anything wrong or something likely to get him criminal punishment.

Not all 'people who get angry' use the anger to commit that kind of assault, or do the myriad of other jerkish things in the game. The assault is not an isolated example.



You have never 'proved' ANYTHING.


And someone is also unable to comprehend simple analogous examples.


Yeah, because it's the intro movie where we DON'T EVEN SEE ANYTHING. Also, ever heard of a 'poker face'?



Because nobody else knows Trucy is living with Phoenix and there's no way to find out!

I don't have time for the rest of this.

---

Wright was there



But all killers and other crime comitters know that the action will lead them to getting arrested if other's found out and thus those who try to escape the law's ruling hide their crimes,ofcourse zak would know a weapon hit would be considered assult if the attacked posed no threat or dangour,however he still hit olga infront of wright,using a bottle,either zak intentionally wanted to be arrested for assult and thus did the assult,or he wasn't thinking about the arrest when he did the crime,the first possibilty is close to impossible,that leave's the second one,if zak was unable to think about that,then his line of thought must have been very damaged at the lapse in judgment,and in such line of thought,there's almost no motive or intention.



I was talking about his anger after the attack,not his lapse of judgment beforehand.



proccess of elimination,either zak was thinking when he attacked,or he wasn't able to think straight,if he was thinking then he must know that the attack would lead to arrest,and wright was there,so it's impossible that either zak commited the crime in hopes of hiding it,and almost impossible that zak intentionally wanted to be arrested thus he did the crime,so it's impossible for him to have been thinking about the arrest when he did the attack,thus wasn't thinking,now what possibilaty is left there,the possibilaty that he wasn't able to think,as long as that remains as the only possibilaty it's the truth,ofcourse you have the abilaty to proove my elimination of the other possibilaty as wrong,or give us a new possibilaty,in short,show that the possibilaty i showed wasn't the only one left,remember "once you eliminate the impossible,what remain's,no matter how imporobable,is the truth",so awaiting your counter-argument.



what do you mean by that?



I wasn't talking about the intro movie,i was talking about when zak was talking to wright,you know,the whole "but all we did was play poker?*confused pose*" "yes,and that was enough *proad pose*"

as for poker face,when zak met wright seven years later,he showed uneasness when he was talking about how the wright had an undeserving fame,he wasn't hiding his emmotions,if back then he wasn't hiding his uneasness,then 7 years ago he wasn't doing it either,besides,he fired a selfish person regardless of the fact that that person lost to him,and hired a kind person regardless of the fact that that person defeated him.



now that i think about it,there are those who know of them like eldoon i admit,but that would mean that zak didn't completly leave trucy and rather kept a close eye on her while still hiding,i guess the locket that's showing a picture of 15 year old trucy,either he must have been watching her,or pictures of her are being sold around,I greatly doubt that picture of poeple other than celeberties and/or famous poeple are being sold,and without the rights trucy can only do things as big as wonder bar.

..............ok,while i was writing this post i gave gamefaqs another visit,and it had these quotes.

Trucy: ...Mr. Attorney. Daddy told me about you.

Trucy: He said I could trust you.

oh,and while i am at it,i thought i might as well copy/paste this too,wright said those before trucy's words above.

Phoenix: I, um, did some calling around. This is hard to say,but...

Phoenix: ...you have no living relatives.

With that,the first ones show that zak told trucy, the second ones show that it wasn't really a bad choice.............at the time(he didn't know wright would lose his badge).



but i replay to almost everything,even those in which i replay with an admital of mistake with an apollogy instead of the usual counter-argument

but then again i guess we do have exams right now(atleast me anyway),so I guess that explains the lack of time available,ok,my apollogies,no need to replay every quote while we are at such troubling times,my appologies for the misunderstanding

---

My mistake then. If you're talking about the court's opinion, then you're right about that. I also thought he'd said he was offically disbarred. My apologies. I... sometimes misinterpet the meanings of words. I was wrong.

Still, you'd have to admit when Zak escaped It made Wright look really bad, even badder than he already was.

It's alright,everyone makes these types of mistakes,me included

yeah,i guess it did make wright look worse(I admit),but the damage can't be compared to that of presenting the forged evidence,and the choice was,escape and make wright look badder than he already looked,or stay and receave death and wright would still get disbarred,lol the better choice here is obvious

---

So what. The whole poker setup seems to be borderline illegal anyway, the fact Phoenix might call police probably didn't even cross Zak's mind. And as you can see Phoenix just got arrested as a murderer for his trouble, so the police don't exactly take Phoenix at his word, do they? Even if they did listen to Phoenix if he told the police he saw Zak assault Olga, ZAK probably assumes nobody will take the Forgin' Attorney seriously, and he'll probably just run off again after his tantrum, anyway. Zak escaped a COURT as SUSPECTED MURDERER. He could probably escape a bar with its far more lax security and fact he wasn't known to be a criminal by the other people, besides practically/nobody was there. And no he wouldn't 'need Trucy to do it' he can perform his own 'disappearing act' since it's not very hard. What's Phoenix going to do, chase him down the street?


I see. So since every person committing an assault knows they might be charged with the crime. So they wouldn't do if if they were 'thinking straight'. Therefore, every assault ever committed is a 'lapse of judgment' where they are 'not thinking at all'. So why is it a crime? Obviously, every assault committer can't help themselves!
Again this entire spiel is illogical. And 'not thinking about possible legal consequences' does NOT equate to 'not thinking at all'.

I rest my case.
...actually, you'll probably take that turn of phrase the wrong way...


And that's all we see? And we see in Zak's Head also?



Illogicality in the extreme.


So what. He wanted someone able to bluff to serve his purpose. That doesn't mean he wasn't also jealous over being beaten. Boss X might hire a genius to do his company's work to advantage himself, but still be jealous of the genius' intelligence.

Or found out where she was 7 years later. Nonetheless, it's irrelevant if Zak kept tabs on her, because he sure as hell didn't send her money or look after her in any way in the 7 years.

I think Phoenix switched them but it might be a plothole.

So what. That's not 'be adopted by you.' or even 'go to you after I disappear to organise something'. Zak knows Trucy has Gramarye eyes so she can tell if Phoenix is lying anyway, hence it's not hard for Zak to tell her to 'trust' a vaguely decent person.


No it doesn't.



But he didn't 'choose Phoenix' to adopt Trucy. At most he expected him to sort out the problem of placing her, like handing her onto the orphanage. At most. Really the police would probably step in and do THAT too. Maybe Zak expected Phoenix might help Trucy out with the legal mess of being a virtual orphan, there are probably forms to fill and such. Paperwork mess so Trucy won't starve which Zak was too cheap to organise himself beforehand.

How many hours a day do you expect me to be posting on this topic?

---

During The trial,the judge himself made a statment about how poker is a crime,however it was pointed out by kristof that it wasn't a crime since it wasn't for money,gambling is a crime,but poker without gambling isn't and therefore,isn't illigal.



The death of zak was unnexpected to him,besides,there are times in which the discoverer of the body is the one to be suspected,or the guy that was closest to the scene of the crime,Case 3-1 goes as an example,the moment everyone so wright with the body when wright discovered the body,they accused him.



besides,the defendant is naturally the one to be least trusted without evidence,the courts don't simply beleave a defendant testomony of "I didn't kill the victem" and use the evidence and witnesses stories instead,and yet they let wright testify.

also,Not everyone knew of wright being the forgin attorney(or as he is falsly accused),take apollo for example,he didn't know untill wright himself told him about his infamous name,and yet apollo knew wright's defense abilaties,and he even expected a wright and co. law offices.

ergo,not everyone who knew wright as an attorney,know of wright's presenting of the forged evidence,besides,the judge didn't show much distrust(excluding the times wright makes a contradiction.................when almost any witness is shown distrust)



sorry but it was indeed really difficult,almost impossible,in court all zak needed to do was run outside the courtroom,have trucy lure the bailiff towerds her,after the bailif enter's,zak would then continue his quick run and exit the building,and then run away from the area before the police make it on time.

however in the poker situation,wright locked the door and called the police,where as zak's only way out was the secret passage,and seeing how this was zak's first time at borscht,it was impossible for him to know of the secret passage,unlike kristof who probably gave it numerous visits to visit wright,so guess what,zak is confined to the room untill the police come.......................that was if kristof hadn't killed him,anyway,ergo,zak couldn't have escaped unless kristof was all "hey zak,here's a secret passage,run before the police get you",where as kristof oppening a secret passage defenetly wasn't in the plan,and neither was escaping the crime of assult.



actually there is another possibilaty,those who planned on escaping the accusation.

of a person's judgment was too hazy to think of the punishment,then it must be too clouded for him to have a motive,too hazy for him to think of wanting to harm the assulted.



sorry but it really isn't illogical,if a person can think of how the assult would lead to his arrest then he'd either not do the assult,or plan to escape the accusation(or the police) beforehand,and it's a crime becouse the law say's so,regardless of wether the punishment is fair or not,it's justice that every law breaker is punished.

and "not thinking about legal consequences" happen's only when a person's judgment is very clouded,and thus the person would also not be able to have a motive,to want to do harm,if his judgment was too hazy for this,then it's also too hazy for that.



then i guess we should avoid that topic then.



we don't,but we can see his body language,and he's not hiding his emotions becouse.....(continuetion on next quote)



(continuation)........If he wasn't hiding his emotions seven years later,then he doesn't hide his emotions about poker,thus he wasn't hiding his emmotions about his poker loss seven years ago.....................I don't see the illogicality,I hope my eyesight isn't going blurry



sorry but I have established before numerous times,by ussage of the quotes from gamefaqs written script,that he can now by poker what type of a guy the person he's playing against is,his true nature,besides what would wrights bluffs do other than prolong the trial(if it was impossible for wright to win without the last page),wether the trial would ended the moment it started,or after wright presented the forged evidence,zak's escape would have went the same way,so the purpose of the poker game wasn't to know of wrights bluffing abillaty.



he saw how she gained money in wonderbar and there you go,he thought there would be no need to help her since she already had a really good life,not as easy as that of zak's,but nothing that requirs giving money,besides,he did give the rights.



sorry,but a claim as big as "it might be a plothole" need's really powerfull evidence,as that claim could be given to pretty much many other actions,if there's a non-plothole explanation to the whole thing,then there isn't a plothole unless the ones who made the game admited to it themselves.

as for wright switching the the picture,he was arrested wright away and I greatly doubt he took with him a picture of trucy,let alone a miniture one,so wright couldn't switch pics,ergo,zak's loccet originally contained 15 year old trucy's pic.



I Have already showed zak's personallity detecting abilaties through poker by ussage of quotes from the game,so phoenix isn't a "vaguely decent person",phoenix was more trustworthy than valant or brushel and thus,the most trustworthy known person,given trucy didn't have any living relatives excluding zak himself,as for what zak's words meant,look at the situation,zak is going to have to leave trucy,meaning trucy will need to be adopted,and in that situation zak told her she could trust wright,ergo,what zak's words meant were that she could trust wright on her adoption,as for her knowing if wright was lying,i'll say this again,wright wasn't a "vaguely decent person"



Ngggggghhhhhoooooooooh (how is that possible)

no wait,I just showed how it does by what i wrote in the last quote(the one above)



zak wasn't too cheap to organize a paperwork mess or such becouse legally preparing her adoption would make his plan found out.

and one thing we know for sure,wright was the most trustworthy person zak knew,now please look at the choices.

1)trust wright
2)trust brushel
3)trust valant
4)trust trucy's relatives.

i would choose 4 but,alas,trucy has no living relatives but zak,and zak knew well valant as much as he knew brushel,and with super abilaties knew of wright as well,so if you really know those three really well,and need to choose to trust one of them,will it be the person that just framed you and you think he's the killer,or the annoying reporter,or the kind person......................please choose honestly,oh and before you choose,brushel was traveling with zak,so he's also out of the question,meaning wright or valant.



please read the rest of my post



I had already acknowledged my mistake and apollogized,please don't make me look like an insensitive person

---

Zak is such a jerk! He's easily my least favorite character in AJ, although I couldn't help but crack up at those comics you posted. *Insert laughing Calisto Yew smiley here*

---

Um, I think you got things mixed up there. We're talking about Zak cheating to expose Phoenix for a crime he never did that's illegal, not the poker game itself.



You're just making assumptions again. What we know is Zak went on a rampage, grabbed a bottle that can (and would) be used a weapon, and SMACKED Olga with it to cause harm to her. It doesn't matter if he was in a hazy fury or not, it doesn't make his actions any more justified!!



You're forgetting the fact she's a 15 year old girl. Someone her age shouldn't even have to be working to pay the bills. She does it because Phoenix couldn't afford to support her by himself, all because of the forgery and Zak's escape, which made him look so bad he couldn't get a decent paying job anywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if he couldn't land a greeter job at Wal-Mart because of that fiasco. Zak was responsible for both Trucy and Phoenix's misfortune, and then years later, he tries to destroy the only job Phoenix could find!



Just because someone is trustworthy doesn't mean they'll adopt your kid for you, especially a kid who was inadvertently responsible for ruining your career and reputation. Most normal people in Phoenix's situation wouldn't even want anything to do with her! Phoenix himself doesn't even contact her for two weeks. She would had likely ended up in an orphanage under any other kind of situation.



I would pick Brushel honestly. Yeah he can be annoying, but he was a pretty decent guy, and more importantly, he had a well-paying job that would help Trucy get by. Better then a disgraced man who has no job or good reputation anymore.

---

Zak is a jerk. More than that, if he had not been murdered by Kristoph, he would be a CRIMINAL. Here's why:

Well, you don't just attack a woman who had absolutely no way of defending herself. If you get pissed off at someone, you could yell at them, or shove them, or even slap them. But using a bottle to injure them is really going too far. If Zak's aim had been off, even just a tiny bit, he could've hit somewhere else on Olga's neck, fatally injuring her, or could've hit her on the head, again killing her. It's ASSAULT/ATTEMPTED MURDER. Zak was showing no restraint. It was pure luck that Olga got hit where she was, not self-control. For example, let's say I've met someone I haven't seen in a while, and they cheated at a game. There is a bottle nearby from my dad's party the night before. Yeah, I'd be mad, but would I use the bottle to hit the person? Shit no. And if you guys argue that it's a different situation, it's a lie. It IS the same situation. One reason why Zak is a jerk, down.

Then there is the fact that Trucy attached to Phoenix right away. That is not normal behavior. You could argue that she had two weeks to mourn him, but if your dad just ups and leaves you all alone, with no family left (no mum, no grandad, no nothing) you'd probably be crying your eyes out and would be shying away from this man who has taken you in. NOT GETTING ATTACHED TO HIM RIGHT AWAY (sorry for caps). Ergo! Zak was more than likely a neglient father, one example being that Trucy said that Zak has not payed her school lunch fees for over a year.

Well, that's all I got for right now.

---

Zak made absolutely no plans for what was to happen to Trucy after his disappearance. He didn't check around to find a loving home, and don't say he found Phoenix, because Zak didn't even ask if it would be alright to leave Trucy with him. He just up and left, abandoning his own daughter. She could have gone anywhere, and he didn't even make a point to follow through and contact Phoenix on how she was doing... Until seven years later. Seven.

He didn't tell Trucy that he was going to disappear; do you know how traumatizing it must have been for her when her father just vanished? How afraid she must have been? He had no consideration for Trucy or Phoenix. Phoenix probably wouldn't have adopted a child in a different situation, so forcing parenthood on someone was a rather jerkish move, too.



Exactly. He could afford it, definitely. There's no good reason that he didn't pay the fees.

---

But he was exposing wright for a crime he did,which was cheating.

and illigal or not wright also had to bend the rules(giving apollo fake evidence)





I am not,becouse either zak would have been too hazy to think,or he would have clearly known the consecuencess.

furthermore,I am not saying his actions are justified,i am saying they are not due to jerkish intentions,his judgement was to clouded and thus he didn't have intentions.

look,if douge was right infront of the loose electric wire,and wright shoved him,thus accedentally pushing him into the caple to be electrecuted to death,does that mean wright intended harm?,ofcourse not,he was simply too mad at the moment to think,heck,douge falling on his umbrella must have been painfull but wright didn't intend that either.



but doing magic is like a fun hobby for her,thus she gains money by having fun,i don't see what's bad about that.

also,zak's escape only made wright look a little worse than he already did,but wether zak escaped or not,wright would have still been disbared for the forgery which was for the 100th and millionth time,kristof's fault,and if zak hadn't escaped he would have been killed under the false accusation of murder,so which choice is better?

1)die for what you didn't do

2)make wright look a little worse than he already is

furthermore,he was giving wright the oppretunity to never have to work to earn a living by giving trucy the rights,wright would just sit in a comfy chair as trucy earns money and has fun at the same time.



trucy wasn't responsible,kristof was the responsible one.

and the reason wright didn't contact trucy was becouse he got disbared,which wasn't in zak's plan at all,heck,it was even against zak's plan.



*ahem*

"brushel was traveling with zak,so he's also out of the question,meaning wright or valant."

furthermore,wright losing his badge wasn't at all in the plan,heck,it was against zak's plan.

---

*headesk*


How was Phoenix cheating? Please elaborate. It was Zak who was cheating, not Phoenix.


She's fifteen years old, and that isn't the legal age for having a proper job. It's child labour. Ergo! Trucy is working illegally!

Also, both Zak and Kristoph are at fault for Phoenix's disbarrement. Kristoph for giving Trucy the forged evidence, and then gave it to Phoenix, and Zak, for not giving Phoenix the real evidence. So you see, they're both guilty.

And you don't hit a person, even if it's in a blind rage. It's known as ABUSIVE PERSON LOGIC. Ya heard of it? It's what Zak did. Phoenix is not an example, because he just gave Doug a shove, and Doug wasn't hurt until Dahlia came along, then Doug was screwed. Phoenix wasn't in a blind rage; neither was Zak. Zak KNEW what he was doing, and he was lucky that he didn't kill Olga. It wasn't self-control at all: It was LUCK.

---

Wright used trucy's perceave abilaty to win the poker matches for 7 years,may i remind you it wasn't his own powers and rather trucy's thus he was getting help on the opponents hand from someone else thus it's cheating.



I have seen kids perform on circuses IRL,I doubt that was illigal.



Zak's foult was unintentional,the reason he had hidden that evidence was so that wright wouldn't win his case,becouse if wright won,valant would go to jail,which zak is trying to prevent.

However Zak had no idea Kristof would inderectly give wright forged evidence,he knew Kristof was not to be trusted with trucy by the poker game(heck,we all saw how evil kristof was when he showed his true colors) but he didn't know kristof would give wright a fogred evidence.



it's not luck,according to AAI,you can get hit in the head by a blunt object,so hard that you'd bleed and lose consciousness,but a few hours later you'd be fine,and the next day it would be as if nothing happened.

thus,it isn't luck that olga wasn't killed.

furthermore,look at this

zak was acting out of charectar when he hit olga,thus his charectar isn't a jerk for hitting her.

---

Don't care. The pinky hat must win! http://www.court-records.net/arts/artbook/Zak%20Gramarye.png

No. Cheating is like looking at your opponent's cards, while Trucy just picked up whether they were uncertain or not. Also, Phoenix didn't bring Trucy with him all the time, so therefore, Phoenix never was cheating. (I also believe that this was mentioned in game).



She's the breadwinner of the family, which is way too much stress for a fifteen year old. And if she owns the Wright Anything Agency, she probably won't go to school, and if I'm correct, the legal age for dropping out of school is 16. Trucy is a minor and should still be in school.





It makes no suggestion that Zak restrained himself, so Olga was indeed extremely lucky that she was not killed and she was hit where she was.

---

wrong,cheating is also getting help knowing how good your opponent's cards are,an even though she didn't come to all of wrights games,she still came,and on the very hard ones according to him.

in which,if it wasn't for trucy,wright wouldn't have been undefeated for 7 years,I dare you and I double dare you to tell that wright would have been undefeated for 7 years without her help.



May I remind you,trucy isn't a normal girl,either way she doesn't need to know that she's the breadwinner,wright would just hide the fact that he's no longer doing poker,and she'd think that the money she's winning would be extra money.

and she doesn't need to drop out of school,she doesn't need to run the whole orginazation or anything,what she does is like what a sports player does,all the young soccer player need's to do is enter the match and play it with the others which would happen after school day is over,the couch(and/or the owners of the team)would be the ones responsible for the paper work and all that.

same here,wright and valant(valant ows zak for what zak did for him) would pretty much organize the show,take care of the paper work,and when school day's over,trucy would come from school to the magic show/concert were she'll do the magic tricks.



very well then,but my lapse of judgment argument still stands,zak didn't intend to commit assult,and regretted it when he did.

---

This argument isn't dead yet?

Since Zak DIES soon after, and is in an 'uncontrollable' rage in the interim, he didn't even have time to 'regret it afterwards'. the end.
I didn't mean to do it. My hand 'just happened' to pick up the best available weapon and smash her in a fantastic place, not even just throw it tantrum style!
Even if Zak had lost conscious control, OF WHICH THERE IS NO PROOF, his subconscious mind was clear and precise in its assaulting and harming aims. And yes, you are just as responsible for your subconscious mind and it too makes you a JERK. How many people commit spontaneous violent crimes every time someone upsets them?

And as we've noted earlier, it's a pattern, he hits Brushel too, and who knows who else. And he repeatedly hurts people in other ways without even caring, when he knows he's doing it too.
Look, serial killers usually have some kind of psychological malfunction that means they genuinely think their victims deserve to die. I suppose this is a 'lapse of judgment' also, isn't it. Some might even regret it later! Are they still unsavoury people? Yes. They probably don't even think of it as 'murder' so they 'aren't' intending murder'.

But Phoenix_Justice just repeats the same old garbage no matter how many times it gets rebutted.

---

I think the point you're missing, Phoenix_Justice, is that his actions are evidence that this WASN'T just rage completely clouding his judgement.

To pick up a weapon of any kind requires a logical thought process. Why do only organisms of a certain level of intelligent use tools (ie. humans, chimpanzees, etc)? Because it takes a certain level of cognitive thought to use tools. It isn't just a basic instinct. Instinct usually entails using our own bodies; our teeth, nails, fists, feet, etc.

Zak didn't just shove Olga. He didn't even punch her (which is pretty jerky in of itself). He actually took the time to look around, find the nearest and most useful tool to cause injury, pick it up, figure out how best to hold/swing it, and THEN charge at her. This shows he THOUGHT about what he was doing, even if this all occurred within seconds, with the deliberate intention to injure Olga in revenge. Yes, he was angry. Yes, anger may have been his reason to act this way. But he still had the mental faculties to think, evidenced by how he improvised with his assault and made a weapon out of a glass bottle.

What's more, Zak had no right to be angry at Olga for the cheat failing, even IF he thought she had betrayed him. The fact is, he was still CHEATING, and he has no right to be mad at Olga for cheating him out of his cheat (regardless of what his motives for cheating were). This is called hypocrisy, and it also makes you a jerk.

---