-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
((If are still an agitator, you are.
And oy! I can't believe I messed them up, I was one of the few who hadn't yet :sad)
((I never was an agitator. However, I backed the wrong side of a coup and I don't know if I'm disenfranchised from this round or the last round (which shouldn't really count as a round).))
((Nobody can remember anybody else's name
((Really? How about the name of my new character?))
de Caviezel - Argentine forces threaten our Empire being so close to our capital. We must drive them from the mountains lest they invade.
Yes to Honours Act
Yes to Imperial Army Diversity Act
Captain Martin Schmidt
Yes to Honours Act
Yes to Imperial Army Diversity Act
Captain Martin Schmidt
((My count so far, for the more important of the 2 bills for voting:
Imperial Army Diversity Act
Yes: 5
No: 16
Thank you junta voting))
Imperial Army Diversity Act
Yes: 5
No: 16
Thank you junta voting
))
You miscounted. Disraeli, Romano, and Weissmuller are all ministers. (And Weissmuller actually has 3 votes because he commands a security brigade, as I was reminded earlier.) So the actual tallies stand:
Prime Minister:
Disraeli: 15
De Caviezel: 4
Imperial Honors Act:
Yes: 23
No:
Abstain: 15
Imperial Army Diversity Act:
Yes: 8
No: 17
Abstain: 15
Prime Minister:
Disraeli: 15
De Caviezel: 4
Imperial Honors Act:
Yes: 23
No:
Abstain: 15
Imperial Army Diversity Act:
Yes: 8
No: 17
Abstain: 15
((Meh, this aweful act still wont pass reguardless, unless Seek decides to throw away most of his army...))
Ah, so the Imperialistas are afraid of dividing power amongst more than two men (one of whom being the "Emperor's" son). If they distrust their own subjects so much, this "Empire" surely cannot last!
Prime Minister: Abstain for now
Imperial Honors Act: Yes
Imperial Army Diversity Act: Yes
Imperial Honors Act: Yes
Imperial Army Diversity Act: Yes
"My dear Prime Minister, Disraeli. I'd very much like to hear your view on the Imperial Army Diversity Act. As for myself i support such an act, because it divides military power among the government, thereby securing the Empire and his Imperial Majesty, from a potential coup which could in theory be lead by one man who has the greatest amount of troops. I vote for this act to help secure the Empire and it's Majesty's safety. We are all supporters on the Empire in this government, and this is why I believe we should also have divided power among us, which will as i mentioned earlier make sure that one man who is in the guise of a supporter with a great army cannot overthrow his Majesty Emperor Cesar I."
- Romano, Head of the Imperial Treasury
- Romano, Head of the Imperial Treasury
I respectfully disagree. The Empire has always depended on the vetting of character, and on loyalty. As we toiled within the Second Viceroyalty, we had to secretly accumulate allies. And even now those who declare for us are watched for a while and then given a position at the next interval, and if they do well given a better position if possible.
There is no room for splitting the armies among unreliable and unproven individuals. We must maintain the system of careful vetting and rewarding loyalty and merit with greater power and prestige. That is my opinion anyway.
"But sir aren't the ministers and the other generals reliable individuals? I am quite positive that his Imperial Majesty has wisely chosen the ministers because they are reliable and have proven their loyalty by supporting his rule."
While I agree with your principles, the law can be altered at a later stage if necessary. The status quo would indicate that the Imperial Ministries are a training camp for Army command; detestably implying that they are the true government of Chile.
I applaud it, as well as Marshal Carrow's abstention from the election, as an emergency measure against military governance.
Last edited:
Plans were already in motion between myself and the Emperor to split up forces to a degree should I be reelected. Those plans will be enacted if I am reelected. However I cannot bind the Empire to a rigid and inflexible scheme that will force us to rob our ministries of talented civilian leaders to fill the ranks of the military officer corps, less we have to put completely un-vetted individuals in high ranking military positions. If you really want to make this a reality, you would have to re-propose and vote for something like my old proposed Leadership Act, which would have allowed ministers to command troops. But as of now, the Constitution states that ministries unrelated to security cannot command troops, that civilian and military power cannot be combined so. And perhaps for good reason, perhaps not; things are not clear cut.
What I do know is that it would be unacceptable to me to lose our few, hard-earned ministers to the splitting up of our forces into needlessly small and weak formations.
So if you are really worried about civilian power, then propose and vote on something akin to the Leadership Act, allowing ministers to hold their civilian ministries and command troops. Until then, voting on this would do exactly what you say you detest about the current arrangement, make the Ministries a training ground for the military. If this Diversification Act is passed it will only reinforce that civilian positions are just a mid-way stop to military positions; because this Act does not provide for civilian ministers being able to command troops, which you perhaps seem to think it does. Otherwise, with your support of more civilian power, you would be opposed to this Diversification Act.
The bottom line is, if this act passes I'll be forced to take our best civilian ministers and remove them from their positions to make them generals; because we have a shortage of reliable men. And you have just stated that you detest the notion of civilian ministers by necessity having to go on to become military officers as part of their career progression; but that would become a permanent part of our government if this Diversification Act passes.
What I do know is that it would be unacceptable to me to lose our few, hard-earned ministers to the splitting up of our forces into needlessly small and weak formations.
So if you are really worried about civilian power, then propose and vote on something akin to the Leadership Act, allowing ministers to hold their civilian ministries and command troops. Until then, voting on this would do exactly what you say you detest about the current arrangement, make the Ministries a training ground for the military. If this Diversification Act is passed it will only reinforce that civilian positions are just a mid-way stop to military positions; because this Act does not provide for civilian ministers being able to command troops, which you perhaps seem to think it does. Otherwise, with your support of more civilian power, you would be opposed to this Diversification Act.
The bottom line is, if this act passes I'll be forced to take our best civilian ministers and remove them from their positions to make them generals; because we have a shortage of reliable men. And you have just stated that you detest the notion of civilian ministers by necessity having to go on to become military officers as part of their career progression; but that would become a permanent part of our government if this Diversification Act passes.
"I have been watching your attempts at maintaining a democratic facade with interest. You seem to be unsuccessful."
Anselmo Galante
Anselmo Galante