Timeline for How is it possible for Count Dracula to rule over an entire country?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 16, 2019 at 20:56 | comment | added | Seallussus | @Pelinore, Fair enough. I partially agree in fact. I only add the idea of a stable regime because he is an IMMORTAL BEING. Sorry for the all caps. I just think this is the most important word in the whole situation. Once you introduce immortality to the equation it becomes a matter of how to build a stable system that lasts for frigging ever. And that makes even the longest living dictator on earth a bad example as they died at some point, while our vampires won't want to continue in a reign of terror for a 100 years only to create a global/local rebellion of epic proportions. | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 20:44 | comment | added | Pelinore | The question is "how is it possible for Dracula to rule a country", it's not "how is it possible for him to rule well while being responsible for relatively few deaths & atrocities", your concerns with being nice seem misplaced in the context of this question because it doesn't ask for nice ;) which isn't to say I don't like your answer best of those available, I have a few issues with the question itself is all. | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 20:39 | comment | added | Seallussus | @Pelinore, If you consider the fact that thousands of deaths is not a problem, for now or the future, then I'm not sure what you will consider. You are also skipping over a long complicated politics of the area including the Gulf support and Iraq-Iran war...etc. And to predict the future of Saddam is absurd. Lastly you seem to miss the biggest point. The fact that a vampire is immortal while a dictator is not immortal. Ruler X can murder people for a 100 years and then dies. A vamp is going to stick around. Even the rest of the ME had evolutions in case you forgot. | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 15:35 | comment | added | Pelinore | @Seallussus : Within the parameters of the question Saddam's (methods) seem to be perfectly 'acceptable'. | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 15:32 | comment | added | Pelinore | @Seallussus : No I'm not confusing democracy with dictatorships, you might be though, not that it matters if you are, because either or is irrelevant to my comments or opinion on this : Saddam did not in fact have any problems he wasn't fully capable of dealing with himself until the USA turned up @ his door, if he had he'd have been gone long b4 they got there wouldn't he : yes he killed thousands, so? what's that to do with my points .. other than proving them of course ;) the question doesn't say his rule must be 'uneventful' just that he can rule & keep his grip on power .. | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 13:58 | comment | added | Seallussus | @Pelinore, You are confusing democracy and dictatorships. Saddam did in fact have trouble, he had trouble with Kurds in the north, with Shia in the south and even with Sunnis in the country. He killed thousands in his time. Same with Al-Assad dynasty in Syria. Same with Iranian Shahinshah and many others in the Middle-East alone. Contrast that with the US where they can have a black president without a lot of problems. So while it's true that minority rulers exist. It's far more complex that just it happened so its fine | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 5:00 | comment | added | Banana Dan | I do like the idea of blood becoming a commodity and opening up a new market. It probably would be a little lame for vampires to only buy blood but it does work with my idea of vampires getting night jobs since they can get money to buy blood which would get more labor done leaving room for art and education and create more money in the society... or something. Can someone who knows economy tell me if this checks out? | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 4:56 | comment | added | Pelinore | Besides any of that ^ hereditary rulers have always been largely immune to issues of ethnicity, after all they're nearly always a de facto ethnicity all of their own anyway. | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 4:55 | comment | added | Cadence | Give people tax incentives if they "donate" blood to the vampires. From the perspective of the ruler, it's like paying for their blood, only without that pesky part where you need actual money. | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 4:51 | comment | added | Pelinore | On minority groups, Saddam was from a minority (just to mention one) & he didn't have any problems, until the Americans rolled in, historically the world has a long & proud (hmm.. proud?) history of complete nutters & sociopaths of unimaginable brutality (which was never really an issue, they were there, they were brutal, so we didn't need to imagine it) ruling countries & empires with very few problems (well, for them). | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 4:32 | comment | added | Pelinore | Though I do believe he said "victorian city" : he did which was why I deleted the comment :) : I still have serious misgivings over the assumption inherent in the question that he'd have any more difficulty ruling his country than any other ruler though, I don't see any plausible reason for that. | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 4:25 | comment | added | Seallussus | @Pelinore, Of course. The more information the better. Though I do believe he said "victorian city" On the running the place part. A leader from a minority group ruling a majority of a different group is not always such a popular thing even to this day. Different politics, different religion, different ethnicity...etc all affect political support as you know. And being a monster could obviously hurt his reputation. | |
| Nov 16, 2019 at 4:07 | history | answered | Seallussus | CC BY-SA 4.0 |