Azothi wrote:

Damning Virginia because of her association with Hell just doesn't make sense to me.

So you're saying one shouldn't damn the nice man with the feed just because he happens to work for the slaughterhouse?

The traditional tactic of London's devils is that of Mephistopheles with Faustus: give the mark what he wants, indeed pile him with what he wants, howeverso fantastic, and then pop in the moment the contract's up and add a nice shiny bottle to the collection.

A year or two ago Prof. Kan warned a friend to be careful with the Quiet Deviless. The friend said, in shock, "I didn't know she wanted my soul!" Precisely so. The whole point of devilry is to leave the mark vulnerable and unawares, and then at the right moment pull out the conveniently hidden fork.

Third, Embassy or no, Virginia has wide support from "the devil on the street"--which is to say the ones actively involved in teasing unsuspecting souls from their rightful owners.

First, that's hardly a ringing endorsement from anyone, but especially from an embassy with an image to keep up. Second, Virginia's always been known for her private schemes (Correspondence stones, anyone?), so this not a major departure from her previously established m.o. It is certainly not grounds for assuming she's had a sudden change of heart.

Let me add a little knowledge from Sunless Skies, too: Devils' souls are unstable and changeable, according to the Deviless who watches over Carillon (who should know). Their characters can change, and not necessarily with much warning. Thus, on those lines too I object to a mayor, whatever her platform, who might take a left turn without warning.

What does an ambitious magician want? Power. Mephistopheles delivers.
What does a lost new Londoner want? Companionship. The Quiet Deviless delivers.
What does an ailing city want? Public services. Virginia delivers.

The fact is, at the end of the day, Devils are always working for their own ends. Their means might benefit you, incidentally and temporarily, but your best interests are never their target, and will be discarded as soon as it is convenient to do so. (If you doubt this, point to me one example of a Devil who chooses loyalty over long-term self-interest.) Even if you forgot everything else you knew about devils, wouldn't this give you pause before trusting yourself to one? An unstable ally is more dangerous than an implacable foe.

Damning Virginia because of her association with Hell just doesn't make sense to me.

And if there is one thing we know about Devils, is that their propositions are always, always tempting, and very rational-looking. Why, only a religious fanatic would not see the merit in them!
And then they eat your soul.

The mayor doesn't execute JUST their campaign promise and nothing more, though. Virginia might set up her sanitarium, and run it well. She has, after all, a reason to follow on her campaign promise. What about everything else? First, we signal to everyone that Devils are fine and good. Their public image changes. They become the establishment, trustworthy, high society even. So yes, I would say the quantity of souls sold, will go up.
And second, we will have a DEVIL as a mayor. Are we to believe that Virginia the casual murderess and deviless will sit in the mayoral palace, and NOT further the agenda of Hell any way she can? She might do it very carefully, but still she will do it.

(Note: My voice in this response is in a grey area between being my voice and being my character's voice; it's a side effect of having to support my character's opinions and trying to inhabit that zone; if anything in it causes offense or negative emotions, I sincerely apologize and will try to do better in the future.)

[Pointing to a 16th-century play that inaccurately depicts the relation between devils and humans is not productive, in my opinion.

This is infantilizing the average Londoner to paint the devils in a harsher light.

The "devil on the street", as you call it

The text states that Virginia is supported by "devils on the street" you then immediately use a definition of "devil on the street" that is not substantiated anywhere in that snippet.

These points aren't in direct conflict, but they draw on opposing appeals. One says, "Virginia is not to be trusted now; she hasn't changed her m.o.." The other says, "Virginia could change her m.o. at any moment; she's not to be trusted."

You're assuming that they are unstable, that they change without warning, and that this changes their character. Where is the evidence for any of that?

"Spirifage," she says. And: "I warned him." After a moment her attention returns to you. "He had a very different soul when we first met. That is the trouble with friendship among Devils. Come back in five years' time and who knows? You may find me engaged in a smuggling operation of my own."

Anyway, taking issue with all this (and the Faustus point) is just taking issue with the evidence, not the point, though.

this made me happy.

But the policies she has proposed - public health, modern medicine, exercise - are proven to have real, tangible societal benefits.

But I can't argue against Ideology.

I believe I have made my reasoning for supporting Virginia clear, and you reject it. I believe I understand your reasons for not, and I reject them. If this were a private discussion, I'd have given up a while ago. It isn't, though; it's public. I want to make that point clear as to why I choose to continue.

If the charity is foremost meant to "improve our souls" (or, in other words, "fattening" them), provided by beings whose sole reason for interacting with humans is robbing said soul from you afterwards, then YES.

I can't even begin to imagine why people are fond of the idea of making London a slaughterhouse for the Devils.

Addendum: I mean, of course I can imagine why some select individuals would be fond of the idea. But in their case I'm firmly on the side of the Bishop of Southwark. Those rotten traitors don't need to be in Hell to BURN.

I think if we elect an agent of every foreign power to municipal office, we get a set bonus.

I'm not particularly keen on having my soul "improved" to better suit another's tastes or purposes.

Snipped...

That is the part that really concerns me, for surely Hell must have some purpose for collecting all these souls. Can this really be purely for the enjoyment of devils, in which case the quality of one's soul is simply adding some seasoning to the dish as it were? Or will providing the devils with souls enriched (especially enriched in a way a deviless like Virginia prescribes) cause greater trouble down the line?

It's a very compelling argument, but honestly it only really works to increase my support for Virginia - the public spa being on an ancient archaeological site quells most of my doubts about her motivation.

Virginia is offering us better public health and the mental and physical strengthening of the populace. Are we really going to swat away her hand and say "I do not take charity from DEVILS!" ?

Jeremiah Oathes wrote:

If the charity is foremost meant to "improve our souls" (or, in other words, "fattening" them), provided by beings whose sole reason for interacting with humans is robbing said soul from you afterwards, then YES.

I can't even begin to imagine why people are fond of the idea of making London a slaughterhouse for the Devils.

Addendum: I mean, of course I can imagine why some select individuals would be fond of the idea. But in their case I'm firmly on the side of the Bishop of Southwark. Those rotten traitors don't need to be in Hell to BURN.

Fattening, slaughterhouse, fattening, slaughterhouse! This comparison turns my stomach more and more each time I hear it. Are we cows? Are we turkeys? Are we livestock? If we are offered food, we may yet become fat and happy, but will we become trapped? Will we become powerless? Does it inevitably follow that any act of charity will be the net that snares us and feeds us to the meat-grinder?

Let's even assume Virginia intends to do this, to "fatten us up before taking us to the slaughterhouse." (it's poppycock, but let's assume it anyway.) What's to stop us from taking her kindness and running away with it? Would a position as Mayor really poise her so to massacre us without any resistance? Are we that powerless that we would let that happen?

VIRGINIA'S PLAN: "Strengthen Londoners spiritually, morally, physically, and mentally." No, that won't give us the Atlas-like ability to hold Paris over our heads. But it WILL strengthen us our resolve and our personal capabilities to better resist the machinations of the MASTERS, and their plans for the arrival of the Sixth City. And it's painfully obvious that we need to strengthen our resolve to resist the Masters' plans, when some Londoners are weak (our blind) enough to subscribe to the Plans of the other candidates, which would actually HELP the Masters to destroy us all.

...
Bottom line: The Masters are the real enemies of London. And of the three candidates in this election, only Virginia opposes them and has a plan that offers any resistance to them. It may not be enough. It may not work. But it's the only one that's not complete capitulation and surrender.