Captain I0

That has nothing to do with a moral code. You don't con people that you are going to run into again, so you avoid getting caught. Jimmy asked if that guy was a regular because if he was: A) He likely would already know Marco was a con-artist and be harder to fool. B) If they successfully were able to con him, he knows where to find them once he figures out he was scammed.

Oh, no doubt. This is one of the more interesting things about the dynamic. The Angel on the shoulder is a jerk- the Devil is really nice. Also a play on the old "you can pick your friends but not your family" bit. Chuck is Jimmy's brother by blood. Marco is his brother in all but name. Marco's mother even gives Jimmy his ring at the funeral and Marco warmly asks about Jimmy's mother and seems legitimately sad to learn of her passing. Jimmy seems to have tried to replace Marco with Chuck over the past 10 years and Chuck has still barely warmed up to him and won't take him seriously. He and Marco fall right back in together after a 10 year hiatus like no time had passed. We all have those kinds of relationships in our lives and they can be very poignant and have a great effect on you.

Of course not. You only have to ask yourself to change the lie to see how ridiculous that is. If somebody had lied and said they were a doctor, when they are really unemployed and a woman came back and slept with him would that be considered rape as well? The woman could say she wouldn't have slept with an unemployed man. And it's a real slipperly slope from there...where could you draw the line? What if he had gone to medical school, but wasn't employed as a doctor? What if he had a P.H.D., but was unemployed and she inferred that he was a medical doctor? What if it was just one of the many numerous little white lies that people tell about themselves when meeting new people? What if he (or she) lied about liking a particular band or style of music because the person they were with was into it? What if he/she lied about her weight or her age when meeting somebody? Ultimately Jimmy told a lie when meeting a woman at a bar. She may/may not have believe it and they slept together. There is nothing remotely illegal or rapey about that. It's unlikely that everything she told him that night was the truth either.

I don't think Saul is all that "bad" either, but to say he's a lawyer who just gets his clients off is whitewashing the things he does. As far as this episode goes, I liked it and unlike a lot of people here, I thought it pretty clearly showed his motivations. Some people said they thought he didn't look like he enjoyed the Chicago con-during the montage, but I disagree. I think we were clearly shown that he really enjoyed that and was in his element. During the montage, it's just that we were seeing him in the cons. He was acting and he's damn good at it. You see after the first con, he's elated. And we see him in the morning after the Kevin Costner girls wake up and he's really happy as well. He doesn't need it anymore financially and he is drawn to go back, but I think the show made it perfectly clear that that's him in his element. BTW - I think maybe the most interesting thing of the episode (and maybe the whole first season) is from a couple of exchanges with Marco. It was good storytelling, IMO, to delay the present-day introduction of Marco until the end. Marco is basically Jimmy's BFF and should have some insight into the character's life that we weren't really privy to. And basically the first thing that Marco says when Jimmy brings up Chuck is that Chuck's a snobby prick and doesn't like Jimmy anyway. This is without the knowledge of the previous episode that we have. Second, we have another character (this one who you have to consider closer than anyone else) who immediately assumes Jimmy is "dirty". Marco's eyes light up when Jimmy tells him he's a lawyer and asks him what cons he's pulling off. Just as Mike, as the Kettlemans, as Chuck, there's just nobody (except maybe Kim) that believes Jimmy can really be on the up and up. Chuck is the Angel on Jimmy's shoulder and Marco the devil. And after spending some time with Marco, Jimmy is basically saying "why did I ever listen to that angel on my shoulder?"

My problem with Maggie's is that the shapes she makes with her mouth often don't match the sounds that come out of it.

Well, I mean, I don't know what the rental market looks like In New Mexico, but he can't be paying more than a few hundred a month for that and that is is place of residence as well as his office. My point is that the show is playing it up because if Jimmy was really a public defender he should be able to afford better living conditions than we are shown. Yeah, he's not rolling in it, but he's not flippin' burgers either. The overall median salary for entry level public defenders is $42,000 to $45,000. My point is that given what we are shown, I think it's somewhat accurate that Jimmy is trying to take shortcuts here. He's just taking PD cases to make ends meet while he tries to hustle his way to being a "big time" lawyer like Chuck. If he wanted to, he could live comfortably as a Public Defender...lots of people do. But a lot of people in this thread have stated that he was only doing these scams and schemes because he's "desperate". My point is that there's no reason for him to be desperate as a public defender. He's not (shouldn't be) in poverty. The show appears to be playing that up a bit by putting him in living conditions that look impoverished.

No. A publicity stunt is something like a donut shop going for the Guiness Record for the World's Largest Donut and getting the media to cover it as an event. You could argue his attempt to get coverage for Hamlin taking the Billboard down was a (borderline) publicity stunt. However, what Jimmy did is fake a rescue (again, putting somebody's life in danger) during that publicity stunt. This is illegal. Your second point...Blackmail can take a few forms. It's not "strongarm" blackmail (i.e - you do this or I'll expose you), but it is still a form blackmail.The implied threat is that the skater twins will sue them if not for Jimmy's help. Just because the Kettlemans don't know that Jimmy set up the accident in the first place, doesn't absolve him of this. Your last point... ("It was stupid and illegal" but not unethical?)...lol. I don't even know how to address that. He hired criminals to act out a crime on this person.

Geez, that is some serious mental gymnastics for trying to dismiss Jimmy's actions here...The Billboard incident is a pure scam - and likely illegal, depending on the state laws. He created and advertisement under false pretenses and (even though he "argued" against it) we know that he actually DID intentionally rip off the HHM Billboard as a part of this ploy...But whatever, I can understand that some people may find this mostly harmless. However, your statements about the Kettlemans are just way off base. First off, he wasn't doing it to be introduced to the Kettlemans. He'd already met the Kettlemans and they had already refused his service. Second, he was again breaking the law in numerous ways. 1. He was stalking them. He watched them for an undetermined amount of time to learn Ma Kettleman's daily routine and driving route. 2. He hired scam artists to throw themselves in front of her car and try to blackmail her. Even if they didn't get it wrong and wind up in the desert with Tuco, he was putting one of those kids in serious danger. Sure they are practiced at taking a fall, but you get hit by a car and you can wind up seriously hurt or killed quite easily. I like Jimmy and I'm not mad at him for this of course, but the idea that he's just "a good guy", or that he in any way is doing what he "needs to do" at this point is pure BS. The other point is that Jimmy really isn't as "desperate" as some here are making him out to be. Sure, the show is playing it up a bit with the closet sized room in the nail salon and the junker car, but Jimmy could be making ends meet just fine as a Public Defender if he wanted to. There are plenty of people who do that for a living. He's not falling behind in his bills. He's not in danger of being thrown out on the street. He's just not the rich, fancy-pants, lawyer that he wants to be. That's not need. Certainly not the type of need that should result in somebody turning to illegal, deceptive and underhanded practices.

If that's your takeaway from what Mike said, you missed his point. Your actions effect you on the bad guy/ good guy metric, not the criminal one. Mike wouldn't say you are a criminal, because you aren't breaking any laws by watching an ep without your husband. You already are a "bad guy" though, because what you did is not honor your deal. sorry

I'm actually ready for Carol to die. She's awful. I don't care that she's plotting against the Alexandrians (though I think you could argue that she ultimately pushed Pete over the edge to come there with a sword). But she's lying and conspiring against CDB. Darryl wanted no part of it, but she was trying (and succeeding) in driving a wedge between Rick and the rest of the group until Michonne finally talked Rick down.

It doesn't look like IMDB says you are wrong to me. He's credited as being on Law & Order episodes in '90, '92. '96 & '98. I never watched Law & Order though, so IMDB is telling me that I likely saw him first in Crocodile Dundee 2. Irony? He's also credited in an episode of Matlock

I'm wondering if this could be another situation that is mirroring what we've seen with Mike and his son. One thing that stuck out to me was when the Sandpiper lawyer was talking to Jimmy, how he made it clear he knew who Chuck was and then laughed off Jimmy's threats saying "this is a shakedown and we both know it". Could it be that Chuck has actually been involved in shady deals in the past and (in some circles) is even well known for that? It could be a bit of misdirection, making the statements seem slightly unconnected (he's acknowledging Chuck and then calling Jimmy shady), but in actuality maybe he's assuming Jimmy's trying to shake him down because that's what he thinks Chuck would do.

Perhaps Cassie has a plan to prevent herself from dying in 2017 and the paper she gave Cole was a part of it. Perhaps its something she knows Cole can't have knowledge of and she'll be pulling the strings from the grave so to speak to get him to "resurrect" her (well, prevent her from dying/getting sick) even if the plague is still released. Perhaps if it succeeds she will even go back to the CDC and place a corpse with a watch in that room so Cole will still come back in time. Although, that's might not be necessary anyway, as if the rules of time travel followed that logic, any actual wiping out of the virus by Cole's actions would prevent him from going back in time in the first place. The watch repairing itself, by whatever means it was, show that time can be altered in this universe. Presumably the pictures Jones showed Foster show the same thing.

I enjoyed the episode and the situation they are in, but I get the feeling that the writers are going to chicken out. We've seen our group walk into lots of seemingly "good" situations over the years, only to find that its not what it seems, or there's something sinister under the surface. What would be interesting, and you can tell they are playing with the idea, is for this one actually to be what it seems, but for Rick and crew to be the ones to ruin paradise. I thought, especially after Rick's "we are the walking dead" speech in the barn, they might really go there. They have become feral and can't handle what really could be a return to civilization, making them the monsters in this one. However, I think I saw enough signs that they are going to chicken out of this idea in the end and, while this new situation will certainly fall apart, they won't make our gang the aggressors. Or, if they are, they will give them justifiable reasons to do so.

That's like your opinion, man

All well and good, except that they weren't trying to shed the light on any kind of hypocrisy or "skewer" the religious types. Did you miss the part where Ian's first plan was to kill them all with guns? They were just shooting for plain old fashioned vengeance. Nothing more. They have no desires to engage in some kind of debate or political schemes. And it was a great way to accomplish that.

Well, that's certainly another way for her to avoid getting pregnant on this trip.

I can't believe there is anybody remotely defensive of Bunting in this episode. She wasn't simply "speaking her mind" or "giving her opinion" she was being deliberately offensive. While you might make the arugment that her first comment wasn't terrible rude, you have to take it in context. Imagine this scenario... You like a guy/girl romantically and have been talking, but have not been on any dates or anything. You are then invited to dinner at their family's house. How would you (or any remotely reasonable person) act at dinner? What kind of conversation would you engage in? She was blantantly rude to the point of being completely unrealistic in her situation. Even if she completely disagreed with everything, someone with the bare minimum amount of social awareness would be nothing but polite. Perhaps she's supposed to have Asperger's.

Poor concepting/writing on this one shows. Cruella DeVille makes zero sense in the ancient Enchanted Forest. And if they wanted to use her, there's an obvious route to bringing her in that doesn't involve straining the (extremely loose) continuity of the Enchanted Realm. Hell, they are bringing Rumple to New York to get back together with them anyway. Cruella can just be a Madison Avenue billioniare that they meet there. bugs.