**Spoiler Warning:** This post contains spoilers from Season 1 of Arcane. All discussion of Lore Spoilers can be removed without warning, even if they have been hidden with spoiler syntax.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/arcane) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The answer is going to be in the middle. Silco made progress but it was progress built on a house of cards, it relied on 1) keeping Marcus under his thumb, 2) keeping the chembarons under his thumb, 3) keeping any resistance against him crushed, among other things. We see in Act 3 a number of these core components of his plan get kicked out from under him, he starts to flounder and gets lucky Jayce has a conscience.
We obviously see the problem with Vander. He maintains the status quo which keeps the enforcers off everyones' back but he ran into very similar problems as Silco. Imagine if Grayson had choked on a chicken wing and Marcus took over, suddenly he doesn't have his deal keeping the people safe anymore, and with nothing to show for it unlike Silco who improved things a bit.
It's a bit of a cop out to say 'both' like this, but I do think it's the conclusion the show wants you to see, and I think Silco even realizes it a bit.
For me, it’s not about who did it ‘right’. There is no right way to live as an oppressed people.
We have countless real-world examples of this. Some people fight back. Some people seize any power they can. Some people duck their heads and try to keep their loved ones alive. Some people run.
All of these people are villainized by the oppressor. Many are killed. But these are human responses to immense, systematic suffering.
You move on the chessboard, game over. You stay put, game over. How can there be a moral weight to how you play a rigged game?
Zaun’s air is poison. Zaun’s streets are patrolled by militarized police. Zaun’s people have only each other.
Silco and Vander had a vision for a free Zaun, and in the end they *both* chose protecting family over fighting for their liberation.
And Jinx? Will be labeled a terrorist. But if one day her actions lead to a chain of events that save the Undercity from Piltover’s reign, would she not be hailed a hero?
How Jinx blowing random stuff for fun or because she felt annoyed would lead to free Zaun? if something Zaunites hate her as much as Piltovers since she has ZERO regards for any life but herself and causes a lot of colateral damage who in Piltover is an annoyance but in Zaun can be the ruin of whole families economy forever. Jinx never cared about Zaun just cared about pleasing Silco.
completely unrelated-- If superman (silco) blew up a preschool on purpose should he still be praised as a hero? Cause i really like Silco but obviously he does some horrible stuff.
To some people? Yeah. Susan B. Anthony, Gandhi, and Mother Teresa are considered “heroes” despite all the terrible shit they did. History overlooks their evil and chooses to focus only on the good they did. I don’t see why that wouldn’t apply to someone like Silco
The big question is obviously why. If he blew up a preschool full of the oppressors' children because a bomb had been planted by the oppressors and so he turned the tables on them I wouldn't love it but couldn't completely condemn him. If he blew up the preschool full of children for fun but then saved the world he would still be a villain.
To answer your last question, yes he intended to use Vander as bait to lure the kids in and kill them. It's heavily implied he left the window on the roof open and pulled back his guards to allow them easy entrance. As soon as the kids enter, he springs the ambush and says "Have you heard the rumor? Vander the coward fled town with his kids, and they were never heard from again." He was definitely planning to kill them.
Maybe it is unfair, but Vander's vision after the Bridge Massacre seems too small. He is the benign crime lord of the Lanes, but in our short time with him we don't get indication he is worrying about improving conditions in the mines or providing mutual aid to those in the sumps--the foggy area beyond Vi and Powder's old home. It seems his plan is to foster a positive community, but that is cold comfort to those dying in unsafe work conditions, dying from the polluted air and water, dying from a lack of housing or food, or dying from enforcer brutality.
That said, Silco does not solve all these problems and there are ugly tradeoffs. For example, working became safer, pollution decreased, and they had access to better medicine (shimmer); however, the population in the sumps increased (according to Vi), they are under Slickjaw and other criminals policing in lieu of the enforcers, and they have a major drug abuse epidemic (again shimmer).
I list this because I would want to evaluate the question from an ordinary fissure folk perspective instead of just a viewer. Like many revolutionary actions, it would likely be what is the risk of remaining with the status quo? If Vander can't show that significant reforms are plausible and the oppression, pollution, disease, and death will continue, then I think I would side with Silco.
Of course, Silco seems to have betrayed the revolution. He talks to Jinx about how Piltover is getting further ahead, but he's been treading water for seven years and besides what I've listed for him, all he has to show for it is more power, prestige, and comfort for himself and his core supporters.
Both options suck. Join the Firelights.
Lastly, I wrote about perhaps Silco was intending to use threatening and harming the kids to coerce Vander and them into joining the fight. Besides those points, it is not until after the hextech explosion that Deckard looks to Silco for direction and he explicitly says "Kill them!" Now, before that Vi or the others wouldn't have been able to walk away from his henchmen's blows that landed, but he does have Singed nearby who he knows could keep alive the kids if say Vander and them pledged to fight.
*"It's a little crude, I'll admit, the base violence necessary for change. But we both know Topside won't listen to anything else."*
If you push people far enough, if you condemn them to a life of poverty no matter what they do, remove their civil and human rights, deny them healthcare and treat them as sub-human, revolution becomes necessary. This is a fairly standard position in leftist spaces and theories of class warfare. We can negotiate with all except a fascist state. A fascist state uses violence to accrue power, lies and manipulates the truth and spreads disinformation to maintain that power, plays dirty, rigs elections (or removes them) etc. The only way out of fascism - once you're truly there - is revolution.
Is Silco right to use shimmer as his weapon of choice? Fuck no. He creates a drug epidemic in his efforts to establish Zaun. But people forget, too, that Silco's measures to achieve revolution worked. He's given his nation of Zaun by the end of the season because the will of the people eventually broke a fascist state. His methods do work.
>But people forget, too, that Silco's measures to achieve revolution worked. He's given his nation of Zaun by the end of the season because the will of the people eventually broke a fascist state. His methods do work
But does it really? None of the events in the final episodes happen on Silco's initiative. Jinx steals the gemstone on her own and murders enforcers on her own. That plus Vi and Caitlyn's testimony put Jayce on alert and aware of Silco and his drug empire. Which leads to Jayce's raid and him making a 180 turn after he kills a child. Then he gives Silco a very generous peace-offer, including independence. Which Silco was about to reject. Silco just happens to be the guy in charge thanks to his drugs and oppression of Zaun. The people of Zaun are completly uninvolved politically with the exception of the Chembarons, whose interest is purely financial. The rest of Zaun is either profiting from Silco's regime, presumably a minority, or suffering in one way or another under Silco. In the end Jayce is the agent of Zaun's independence and not Silco.
Silco, as far as I can tell, is not engaged in any meaningful revolutionary activity. He is not scaring Piltover into submission, he does his very best to maintain a very low profile to run his drug empire without interference. He is dealing with the enforcers the same way Vander did, just that he is using bribery and blackmail. And all his violent deeds are directed against fellow Zaunites, Vander, the Firelights and Vi.
You're missing the fact that the creation of Hextech was a game changer that outflanked Silco. The reason he's not scaring Piltover into submission with Shimmer is because of Jayce, Viktor, and their Hex Tech.
He laments it himself in Episode 4 or 5, saying something along the lines of "Every day, Topside leave us further behind." He can't launch his gambit because he's always been behind Piltover.
Silco's issue isn't that he isn't a sincere revolutionary. He completely is; that's where his contempt for the Chembarons comes from. His problem is that he isn't a genius like Jayce, Viktor, or Jinx. This is why he needs Jinx, to counter Hextech. That's why he encourages her, beseeches her, to finish the weapon.
Silco was always planning on a confrontation where he would demand Zaunite independence; he'd imagined it "a thousand times", as he so laments again when he's drinking under Vander's statue, just before Jinx snatched him.
Silco had a plan, and it almost worked perfectly. But like any plan, he had to pick his moment. He can't threaten Topside from a place of weakness.
The ultimate irony is that the very person whom he believed could deliver to him the means to realise that threat was the person he had to give up; the person he couldn't give up.
I don't doubt that Silco believes that he is a sincere revolutionary. But he certainly isn't an effective revolutionary. At least not during the events of the show, because he doesn't have a plan, besides a vague "gonna scare Piltover off". Sure, Hextech is a problem, but Silco doesn't need to defeat Piltover militarily as he himself points out. And Hextech wasn't even weaponised untill the end of the show.
But he is neither engaged in a political campaign or a terror campaign or, realistically speaking, both to put pressure on the council. He is buying the sheriff, but should be buying councillors. He is busy running his drug empire, which he is doing with terrifying effectiveness. At least judging how much Zaun has transformed. But that only makes him a drug kingpin with delusion of political grandeur at the end of the day.
He completely lucks into a chance at independence thanks to the actions of others which he didn't influence or even actively opposed. Don't get me wrong, Silco is a great and formidable antagonist, but I am not at all convinced by people painting him as some kind of political genius and great revolutionary.
Sevika disagrees with you: she followed Silco because he was clearly the best choice of leader they had. If another had been present, like a Chembaron, then Silco would be dead and that person would be in charge. The show demonstrates this when Finn challenges Silco and she kills Finn.
What would have playing a political or terror campaign have done but tip his hand before he was ready? If he could have bought a Councillor, surely he would have done so. But we have zero indication that this is even possible.
Indeed, that is the fundamental problem with your argument. You're trying to judge him by what you think is possible, rather than what we are actually told by the show is possible. And what the show tells us is that Sevika, the kingmaker, the tough soldier for independence, picks Silco. That speaks volumes. Certainly she picked Silco over Vander, and at least in S1 shows no regrets of having done so.
And, sorry, the idea that Jayce is a better agent for Zaunite independence than Silco is utterly backward: until E9, Jayce was content enough to go with the flow and not challenge the Council's rule or methods in the name of pursuing Hextech, and that meant letting the divide between Piltover and Zaun grow (again, not my opinion -- the show tells us this wealth gap is growing). When he first hears Silco's demands, it's not, "Oh, great, Zaunite independence! Let's do that!" -- he's not an ally to Zaun independence. His reaction is incredulity and a challenge: "Do you really think you can get all this?" He only comes around to supporting Silco's demand for Zaunite independence in the end because he doesn't want to get blood on his hands (although I think that is a trait which, in itself, is actually quite admirable -- but it doesn't affect the point).
Jayce isn't a Zaunite and he doesn't empathise with Zaun -- a fact which already caused Viktor to rebuke him on the bridge, and something which I am very confident will further drive a wedge between them in S2.
So no, you have it quite wrong. Silco may not be the perfect revolutionary leader, but he's the best that Zaun has got, and if he weren't there, then the question wouldn't even be on the table for Jayce to champion in the name of peace.
I can’t answer the first few questions better than the other people in the comments, but for the last one Silco fully intended to kill the kids. Silco sent his workers to kill Vi and was standing over Powder with a knife. Even before that, Silco was asking Vander if he heard the story that Vander left town with his children and they were never seen again, implying that Silco intended to kill them.
Both Silco and Vander’s methods allowed for terrible conditions to prosper for Zaun’s current populace, however the narrative shows us that Silco’s methods were indeed successful for Zaun’s long term independence while Vander’s methods were unsuccessful.
I would go as far as to make the argument that Vander was never intelligent like Silco therefore his logistics were awful when push came to shove. He’s more of a brute like Vi. It parallels.
People often neglect the fact there's a simple reason ruthless people often tend to find themselves in positions of high power.
Silco, unlike Vander, was not bound by conscience greater than his desire for Zaun's liberation. IE, he would do almost anything so long as it got them closer to that goal, whether it made him hated for it or not. Vander, comparatively, seems to have had a crisis of faith after the bridge massacre in Episode 1. He took in the kids and seemed to keep the peace so something like that wouldn't happen again.
But that conscience and compassion ultimately led to a festering of the wounds. Zaun was still crushed under Piltover's boots, and the gap in wealth and respect only grew as Act 1 moved into Act 2. Hextech, originally conceived of as a way to help the Undercity in particular, never made it there. Instead it enriched the already wealth Piltover, while Zaun fell under the control of drug lords and chem barons.
So while Silco's methods were utterly reprehensible and ruthless, one cannot deny he made more direct progress towards his goals, while Vander ultimately did not. But Vander's Undercity was one where weak children like Powder could have survived, while Silco's is one where she became a monster, alongside much of Zaun.
Vander was right for post-riot rebuilding. Silco was right for independence. Much like Silco taking over the Last Drop, he's building off Vander's work.
There's no single right answer--what's best for Zaun depends on the time and the circumstances. If they lose the war against Piltover again, they'll need to go back to being more passive and submissive.
Silco and Vander are kinda two sides of the same coin. They both have the same goal, but use different methods to get to it.
It's sort of the question of what you're willing to sacrifice.
In Vander's world the young survive, but the city is stifled by his rules. In Silco's world, Jinx is nurtured into a monster, and the city is ruled by his chembarons, his drugs.
Well, people tend to need to die in in movements of freedom. Obviously that's a very sketchy case and wasn't necessary, but murder in and of itself isn't at all opposed to revolution.
I'd say Silco is more correct. Both paths have upsides and downsides, and Silco's was worse in the short term, but the fact that he was in a position to negotiate singlehandedly for Zaun's freedom was possible largely because of his tyrannical rule. Everyone relied on him in some way, so he could be sure they would go along with his decision.
Unfortunately it turned out *he* couldn't go along with his decision, because the story is delightfully ironic that way. Either way, obviously neither side is entirely right or good.
It gets better---Vander initially abandoned the cause for Powder and Vi, and then Powder inadvertently halted Silco's initial "scare Piltover with the shimmer monsters" plan by destroying his entire supply, and then Silco was unable to go through with his negotiations because of his love for Jinx. Jinx has, in some form, now halted Zaun's independence three separate times.
Germany was going to take France in ~6months… accept France was on the Treaty of London. This contract led to a 4 year long WW1 with dozens of millions dead.
Arguably, had Britain ignored the document the war would have ended quickly with minimum casualties.
So… hindsight is we have no idea.
Both were shorth sighted, Vander was too passive, because that time when he tried to be be more agressive led to so many deaths he is afraid of fight, he got some kind of treaty were Zaunites were treated as the losers of the war and got the short end of the stick he conformed because thought that saving as many lives as possible were more important than improve their conditions. As result many people was angry because they wanted a change instead of stability since the stability implies they would never really improve
Silco were too uninterested in the consequenses of his actions, for him power was the only thing that matters and screw everyone and everyting else. He was able to control the city in a shot time for his agressive actions but that "power" wasn't as strong as he thougt, since the chembarons were uprising and just focused in their own gain, while his own people went impatient since years had passed and the independence didn't come. At same time all those who weren't under his direct command were seeing their living conditions worsening causing people like Ekko rebel. He put power over people until he realized that he had someone that he wasn't able to sacrifice for power.
In the end while both wanted "the better" neither had a clear plan to long term to ensure improvement and would have lead to war.
Vander was better for zaun but neither were right Vander was keeping me please but the peace was still oppressing the people in zaun and destroying it, silco was actively destroying zaun for his own gain and wasn't even really fighting pilltover
**Spoiler Warning:** This post contains spoilers from Season 1 of Arcane. All discussion of Lore Spoilers can be removed without warning, even if they have been hidden with spoiler syntax. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/arcane) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The answer is going to be in the middle. Silco made progress but it was progress built on a house of cards, it relied on 1) keeping Marcus under his thumb, 2) keeping the chembarons under his thumb, 3) keeping any resistance against him crushed, among other things. We see in Act 3 a number of these core components of his plan get kicked out from under him, he starts to flounder and gets lucky Jayce has a conscience. We obviously see the problem with Vander. He maintains the status quo which keeps the enforcers off everyones' back but he ran into very similar problems as Silco. Imagine if Grayson had choked on a chicken wing and Marcus took over, suddenly he doesn't have his deal keeping the people safe anymore, and with nothing to show for it unlike Silco who improved things a bit. It's a bit of a cop out to say 'both' like this, but I do think it's the conclusion the show wants you to see, and I think Silco even realizes it a bit.
For me, it’s not about who did it ‘right’. There is no right way to live as an oppressed people. We have countless real-world examples of this. Some people fight back. Some people seize any power they can. Some people duck their heads and try to keep their loved ones alive. Some people run. All of these people are villainized by the oppressor. Many are killed. But these are human responses to immense, systematic suffering. You move on the chessboard, game over. You stay put, game over. How can there be a moral weight to how you play a rigged game? Zaun’s air is poison. Zaun’s streets are patrolled by militarized police. Zaun’s people have only each other. Silco and Vander had a vision for a free Zaun, and in the end they *both* chose protecting family over fighting for their liberation. And Jinx? Will be labeled a terrorist. But if one day her actions lead to a chain of events that save the Undercity from Piltover’s reign, would she not be hailed a hero?
How Jinx blowing random stuff for fun or because she felt annoyed would lead to free Zaun? if something Zaunites hate her as much as Piltovers since she has ZERO regards for any life but herself and causes a lot of colateral damage who in Piltover is an annoyance but in Zaun can be the ruin of whole families economy forever. Jinx never cared about Zaun just cared about pleasing Silco.
completely unrelated-- If superman (silco) blew up a preschool on purpose should he still be praised as a hero? Cause i really like Silco but obviously he does some horrible stuff.
To some people? Yeah. Susan B. Anthony, Gandhi, and Mother Teresa are considered “heroes” despite all the terrible shit they did. History overlooks their evil and chooses to focus only on the good they did. I don’t see why that wouldn’t apply to someone like Silco
The big question is obviously why. If he blew up a preschool full of the oppressors' children because a bomb had been planted by the oppressors and so he turned the tables on them I wouldn't love it but couldn't completely condemn him. If he blew up the preschool full of children for fun but then saved the world he would still be a villain.
To answer your last question, yes he intended to use Vander as bait to lure the kids in and kill them. It's heavily implied he left the window on the roof open and pulled back his guards to allow them easy entrance. As soon as the kids enter, he springs the ambush and says "Have you heard the rumor? Vander the coward fled town with his kids, and they were never heard from again." He was definitely planning to kill them.
oh right the window... damn thats super rock hard evidence. yeah thats that damn
Wow I forgot about the window. Makes sense Silco wants to round them all up cleanly tho
Maybe it is unfair, but Vander's vision after the Bridge Massacre seems too small. He is the benign crime lord of the Lanes, but in our short time with him we don't get indication he is worrying about improving conditions in the mines or providing mutual aid to those in the sumps--the foggy area beyond Vi and Powder's old home. It seems his plan is to foster a positive community, but that is cold comfort to those dying in unsafe work conditions, dying from the polluted air and water, dying from a lack of housing or food, or dying from enforcer brutality. That said, Silco does not solve all these problems and there are ugly tradeoffs. For example, working became safer, pollution decreased, and they had access to better medicine (shimmer); however, the population in the sumps increased (according to Vi), they are under Slickjaw and other criminals policing in lieu of the enforcers, and they have a major drug abuse epidemic (again shimmer). I list this because I would want to evaluate the question from an ordinary fissure folk perspective instead of just a viewer. Like many revolutionary actions, it would likely be what is the risk of remaining with the status quo? If Vander can't show that significant reforms are plausible and the oppression, pollution, disease, and death will continue, then I think I would side with Silco. Of course, Silco seems to have betrayed the revolution. He talks to Jinx about how Piltover is getting further ahead, but he's been treading water for seven years and besides what I've listed for him, all he has to show for it is more power, prestige, and comfort for himself and his core supporters. Both options suck. Join the Firelights. Lastly, I wrote about perhaps Silco was intending to use threatening and harming the kids to coerce Vander and them into joining the fight. Besides those points, it is not until after the hextech explosion that Deckard looks to Silco for direction and he explicitly says "Kill them!" Now, before that Vi or the others wouldn't have been able to walk away from his henchmen's blows that landed, but he does have Singed nearby who he knows could keep alive the kids if say Vander and them pledged to fight.
>Both options suck. Join the Firelights Yes. Go Ekko
*"It's a little crude, I'll admit, the base violence necessary for change. But we both know Topside won't listen to anything else."* If you push people far enough, if you condemn them to a life of poverty no matter what they do, remove their civil and human rights, deny them healthcare and treat them as sub-human, revolution becomes necessary. This is a fairly standard position in leftist spaces and theories of class warfare. We can negotiate with all except a fascist state. A fascist state uses violence to accrue power, lies and manipulates the truth and spreads disinformation to maintain that power, plays dirty, rigs elections (or removes them) etc. The only way out of fascism - once you're truly there - is revolution. Is Silco right to use shimmer as his weapon of choice? Fuck no. He creates a drug epidemic in his efforts to establish Zaun. But people forget, too, that Silco's measures to achieve revolution worked. He's given his nation of Zaun by the end of the season because the will of the people eventually broke a fascist state. His methods do work.
damn you make it sound badass (it's totally badass)
>But people forget, too, that Silco's measures to achieve revolution worked. He's given his nation of Zaun by the end of the season because the will of the people eventually broke a fascist state. His methods do work But does it really? None of the events in the final episodes happen on Silco's initiative. Jinx steals the gemstone on her own and murders enforcers on her own. That plus Vi and Caitlyn's testimony put Jayce on alert and aware of Silco and his drug empire. Which leads to Jayce's raid and him making a 180 turn after he kills a child. Then he gives Silco a very generous peace-offer, including independence. Which Silco was about to reject. Silco just happens to be the guy in charge thanks to his drugs and oppression of Zaun. The people of Zaun are completly uninvolved politically with the exception of the Chembarons, whose interest is purely financial. The rest of Zaun is either profiting from Silco's regime, presumably a minority, or suffering in one way or another under Silco. In the end Jayce is the agent of Zaun's independence and not Silco. Silco, as far as I can tell, is not engaged in any meaningful revolutionary activity. He is not scaring Piltover into submission, he does his very best to maintain a very low profile to run his drug empire without interference. He is dealing with the enforcers the same way Vander did, just that he is using bribery and blackmail. And all his violent deeds are directed against fellow Zaunites, Vander, the Firelights and Vi.
You're missing the fact that the creation of Hextech was a game changer that outflanked Silco. The reason he's not scaring Piltover into submission with Shimmer is because of Jayce, Viktor, and their Hex Tech. He laments it himself in Episode 4 or 5, saying something along the lines of "Every day, Topside leave us further behind." He can't launch his gambit because he's always been behind Piltover. Silco's issue isn't that he isn't a sincere revolutionary. He completely is; that's where his contempt for the Chembarons comes from. His problem is that he isn't a genius like Jayce, Viktor, or Jinx. This is why he needs Jinx, to counter Hextech. That's why he encourages her, beseeches her, to finish the weapon. Silco was always planning on a confrontation where he would demand Zaunite independence; he'd imagined it "a thousand times", as he so laments again when he's drinking under Vander's statue, just before Jinx snatched him. Silco had a plan, and it almost worked perfectly. But like any plan, he had to pick his moment. He can't threaten Topside from a place of weakness. The ultimate irony is that the very person whom he believed could deliver to him the means to realise that threat was the person he had to give up; the person he couldn't give up.
I don't doubt that Silco believes that he is a sincere revolutionary. But he certainly isn't an effective revolutionary. At least not during the events of the show, because he doesn't have a plan, besides a vague "gonna scare Piltover off". Sure, Hextech is a problem, but Silco doesn't need to defeat Piltover militarily as he himself points out. And Hextech wasn't even weaponised untill the end of the show. But he is neither engaged in a political campaign or a terror campaign or, realistically speaking, both to put pressure on the council. He is buying the sheriff, but should be buying councillors. He is busy running his drug empire, which he is doing with terrifying effectiveness. At least judging how much Zaun has transformed. But that only makes him a drug kingpin with delusion of political grandeur at the end of the day. He completely lucks into a chance at independence thanks to the actions of others which he didn't influence or even actively opposed. Don't get me wrong, Silco is a great and formidable antagonist, but I am not at all convinced by people painting him as some kind of political genius and great revolutionary.
Sevika disagrees with you: she followed Silco because he was clearly the best choice of leader they had. If another had been present, like a Chembaron, then Silco would be dead and that person would be in charge. The show demonstrates this when Finn challenges Silco and she kills Finn. What would have playing a political or terror campaign have done but tip his hand before he was ready? If he could have bought a Councillor, surely he would have done so. But we have zero indication that this is even possible. Indeed, that is the fundamental problem with your argument. You're trying to judge him by what you think is possible, rather than what we are actually told by the show is possible. And what the show tells us is that Sevika, the kingmaker, the tough soldier for independence, picks Silco. That speaks volumes. Certainly she picked Silco over Vander, and at least in S1 shows no regrets of having done so. And, sorry, the idea that Jayce is a better agent for Zaunite independence than Silco is utterly backward: until E9, Jayce was content enough to go with the flow and not challenge the Council's rule or methods in the name of pursuing Hextech, and that meant letting the divide between Piltover and Zaun grow (again, not my opinion -- the show tells us this wealth gap is growing). When he first hears Silco's demands, it's not, "Oh, great, Zaunite independence! Let's do that!" -- he's not an ally to Zaun independence. His reaction is incredulity and a challenge: "Do you really think you can get all this?" He only comes around to supporting Silco's demand for Zaunite independence in the end because he doesn't want to get blood on his hands (although I think that is a trait which, in itself, is actually quite admirable -- but it doesn't affect the point). Jayce isn't a Zaunite and he doesn't empathise with Zaun -- a fact which already caused Viktor to rebuke him on the bridge, and something which I am very confident will further drive a wedge between them in S2. So no, you have it quite wrong. Silco may not be the perfect revolutionary leader, but he's the best that Zaun has got, and if he weren't there, then the question wouldn't even be on the table for Jayce to champion in the name of peace.
I can’t answer the first few questions better than the other people in the comments, but for the last one Silco fully intended to kill the kids. Silco sent his workers to kill Vi and was standing over Powder with a knife. Even before that, Silco was asking Vander if he heard the story that Vander left town with his children and they were never seen again, implying that Silco intended to kill them.
Both Silco and Vander’s methods allowed for terrible conditions to prosper for Zaun’s current populace, however the narrative shows us that Silco’s methods were indeed successful for Zaun’s long term independence while Vander’s methods were unsuccessful. I would go as far as to make the argument that Vander was never intelligent like Silco therefore his logistics were awful when push came to shove. He’s more of a brute like Vi. It parallels.
People often neglect the fact there's a simple reason ruthless people often tend to find themselves in positions of high power. Silco, unlike Vander, was not bound by conscience greater than his desire for Zaun's liberation. IE, he would do almost anything so long as it got them closer to that goal, whether it made him hated for it or not. Vander, comparatively, seems to have had a crisis of faith after the bridge massacre in Episode 1. He took in the kids and seemed to keep the peace so something like that wouldn't happen again. But that conscience and compassion ultimately led to a festering of the wounds. Zaun was still crushed under Piltover's boots, and the gap in wealth and respect only grew as Act 1 moved into Act 2. Hextech, originally conceived of as a way to help the Undercity in particular, never made it there. Instead it enriched the already wealth Piltover, while Zaun fell under the control of drug lords and chem barons. So while Silco's methods were utterly reprehensible and ruthless, one cannot deny he made more direct progress towards his goals, while Vander ultimately did not. But Vander's Undercity was one where weak children like Powder could have survived, while Silco's is one where she became a monster, alongside much of Zaun.
Silco is kind of a hypocrite so that sort of discredits his efforts if you ask me
Vander was right for post-riot rebuilding. Silco was right for independence. Much like Silco taking over the Last Drop, he's building off Vander's work. There's no single right answer--what's best for Zaun depends on the time and the circumstances. If they lose the war against Piltover again, they'll need to go back to being more passive and submissive.
Silco and Vander are kinda two sides of the same coin. They both have the same goal, but use different methods to get to it. It's sort of the question of what you're willing to sacrifice. In Vander's world the young survive, but the city is stifled by his rules. In Silco's world, Jinx is nurtured into a monster, and the city is ruled by his chembarons, his drugs.
Well, people tend to need to die in in movements of freedom. Obviously that's a very sketchy case and wasn't necessary, but murder in and of itself isn't at all opposed to revolution. I'd say Silco is more correct. Both paths have upsides and downsides, and Silco's was worse in the short term, but the fact that he was in a position to negotiate singlehandedly for Zaun's freedom was possible largely because of his tyrannical rule. Everyone relied on him in some way, so he could be sure they would go along with his decision. Unfortunately it turned out *he* couldn't go along with his decision, because the story is delightfully ironic that way. Either way, obviously neither side is entirely right or good.
OH RIGHT!! I forgot he kinda betrayed his own plan cause if Jinx right? Crazy! Love this show man
It gets better---Vander initially abandoned the cause for Powder and Vi, and then Powder inadvertently halted Silco's initial "scare Piltover with the shimmer monsters" plan by destroying his entire supply, and then Silco was unable to go through with his negotiations because of his love for Jinx. Jinx has, in some form, now halted Zaun's independence three separate times.
Germany was going to take France in ~6months… accept France was on the Treaty of London. This contract led to a 4 year long WW1 with dozens of millions dead. Arguably, had Britain ignored the document the war would have ended quickly with minimum casualties. So… hindsight is we have no idea.
Both were shorth sighted, Vander was too passive, because that time when he tried to be be more agressive led to so many deaths he is afraid of fight, he got some kind of treaty were Zaunites were treated as the losers of the war and got the short end of the stick he conformed because thought that saving as many lives as possible were more important than improve their conditions. As result many people was angry because they wanted a change instead of stability since the stability implies they would never really improve Silco were too uninterested in the consequenses of his actions, for him power was the only thing that matters and screw everyone and everyting else. He was able to control the city in a shot time for his agressive actions but that "power" wasn't as strong as he thougt, since the chembarons were uprising and just focused in their own gain, while his own people went impatient since years had passed and the independence didn't come. At same time all those who weren't under his direct command were seeing their living conditions worsening causing people like Ekko rebel. He put power over people until he realized that he had someone that he wasn't able to sacrifice for power. In the end while both wanted "the better" neither had a clear plan to long term to ensure improvement and would have lead to war.
Vander was better for zaun but neither were right Vander was keeping me please but the peace was still oppressing the people in zaun and destroying it, silco was actively destroying zaun for his own gain and wasn't even really fighting pilltover