Did you cure Mark's depression twice? That's a neat trick. Once by Armsmaster's drug trials, and once by Amy.

Still missing you and these fics...

well. that's tattletale for you. if her power can't make her tattle on others it will make her tattle on herself.

I enjoyed this story and I hope you get a chance to continue it. Thanks for sharing it with us.

This was fun, let's see where it goes

I have no idea if you know this but Enterprise-E would be the second in class otherwise the class name would be Enterprise...

Well this is a hell of a lota fun, interesting to see if you take it farther.

Such an enjoyable and interesting tale with a novel approach to the crossover, well done and thank you.

Sorry. Couldn't get passed chapter 6. I expected that after yhe first chapter this would flash back to the beginning or be a full on crack fic. When you made the next chapter seem like it was supposed to be a true follow up and not so much crack i tried to follow. But theres just so much crack i can handle.
Stupid for the sake of stupid is annoying to me. Later.

I like this… but what the fuck did I just read I could barely keep up with this jumping from one thing to the other like a cliche im hyperactive ok lots of sugar type shit so now I’ve got super speed

And Taylor has now committed an international law crime, for which she, by her own rules, must stand trial. Or is she a hypocrite that believes laws only exist for other people?

Also, she's going to be a bit upset when she learns the Endbringers are Master victims, and she basically has been abusing crime victims and feeling smugly justified in doing so because of what the actual criminal did.

There is an international treaty, that creates international law, that basically states that no one person can own anything in space that didn't originate on Earth, and that no one government can claim authority over anything in space. It's similar to how the Antarctic treaty works.

This means that any kind of asteroid or lunar mining is illegal on an international law level, with an exemption for limited scientific samples - which belong to the government that sent the research probe, not any individuals. This is why 100% of the moon rocks in the world are either loaned US government property that cannot be legally bought or sold, stolen US government property that cannot be legally bought or sold, or are forgeries. No exceptions.

This also means that access to space cannot be legally denied to anyone who can get there, whether they are signatory to that treaty or not. Taylor cannot legally stop the Chinese from going into space without violating that treaty - and as a US citizen she is bound to obey it.

If Taylor violates that treaty, she will become a criminal in all signatory nations.

While international law does apply to nations, it doesn't apply arbitrarily without their consent - that would be an act of aggressive warfare, which is against international law. The body of international law is created by treaty agreements between nations, and if there are 200 nations in the world and 199 agree to a given treaty that creates a new international law but 1 nation does not, then that new law does not apply within the territory of that 1 nation - and people who 'break' that law where it does not apply cannot be prosecuted for breaking it, or even lawfully arrested, even if they travel to a place where it is illegal, without committing an act of war.

The USA is in a special problematic situation when it comes to international law. US laws exist in several tiers, and a lower tier law cannot supersede or overrule a higher tier law. This is why cities cannot violate state law, and states cannot violate federal laws and no level of government can violate its charter or constitution. Properly ratified international treaties exist on the federal statute tier. If an international treaty is signed but not ratified, then it does not actually become binding on the USA even though other countries might consider it binding, because the one who signed it didn't have the authority to do so. And because federal statutes are a lower tier than the federal Constitution, if a treaty is signed and ratified but contradicts or violates something the Constitution says, it cannot be enforced in the USA.

A good example of this is international treaties against gun ownership that have been occasionally suggested by the US anti-gun movement. Assuming such a treaty was signed and ratified - MUCH easier than enacting a constitutional amendment - it would not be the end-run around the US Constitution the anti-gunners think it would be, because it would create a federal statute that directly violated the US Constitution, and would therefore be null and void right from the start. Any attempt by a foreign country to enforce that signed treaty would lose in a US court and the US has laws saying that any foreign court ruling - which includes the international courts - that violates the US Constitution cannot be enforced against US citizens in the USA even though there are international treaties that do allow such enforcement of court decisions.

Any attempt to enforce those null and void treaties against the USA would be an act of war. Refusing to defend the country against such an attack will get people impeached from office. Working with foreigners - which would include Roddenberry and her army of synthetic people - would be treason. A treason conviction could result in the death penalty in the USA even if it were formally abolished in every US state and federal statute, because it's built into the Constitution - the only crime that is.

There are also international mutual defense treaties. NATO, for example. If any NATO member is the victim of an act of war and goes to war in response, all the NATO countries are required by international law to attack the enemy too. Taylor could easily wind up in a shooting war with the entire western hemisphere if she's not careful about how she enforces international laws, given how she 'may' have control issues that could drive her to overreact to defiance.

The problem with disappearing members of legislatures and congress for corruption is that until they are actually impeached, it is a felony to prevent them from attending votes on the domestic side and an act of war for a foreign power to do so.

The fact they are under arrest or in jail is legally irrelevant. They must be permitted to attend votes in the legislatural or congressional body they are members of. Anyone preventing them is guilty of a crime.

I can understand wanting to clean up corruption, but every official who doesn't go after Taylor for this becomes a corrupt official that would be subject to disappearing. Remember, it's still corruption when they're doing something illegal that you personally like.

Military action against a Sovereign-class cruiser by the United States is likely to end badly for the USA, but the thing about duty and obligations under the law is that considerations like that don't actually apply. It's literally the duty of any US military personnel or police officer to take a shot at Taylor for the crimes she is committing.

Unless Taylor wants to wind up at war with the non-corrupt, law-abiding, good people in the US government, she's probably not going to be able to intern any members of Congress. The way the laws are written, she'd be guilty of a crime if she prevented someone from attending a vote - people who are convicted felons who somehow manage to get elected have to be released from prison to attend congressional votes.