*this isn't organized.

I think it's sad how little opportunity Josh and Simon were given to develop. Like, at all. Even their dialogues sounds terrible, almost like they're speaking for the game instead of as actual human beings. [Edit: Ha, this is so funny I'm keeping it in. "As actual human beings" bruh]

A scene on the Capitol park chapter is the clearest example of this. If he's still alive, Simon says (ha!); "Our broadcast is all over the news. Now the humans know what we want. We have to think about public opinion." Or something similar. At first it sounds like normal conversation, right?

Until you realize he's talking to Josh and North who all have the same amount of information as him so they already know what he's saying is true. And Markus isn't there so he can't be speaking to him. Which means he's talking directly to the player, literally spelling out everything for us and it makes me 😭😭😭 is that what people sound like irl? Like mouthpieces?

He's literally telling us "public opinion is really important in this game, just so you know. Think about all those blue arrows you're going to get *wink wink*" to remind the player to go pacifist.

For all the terrible ways David Cage handles North's character, in contrast to the other two Jericho leaders, she looks so fucking well written lmao. Most of what comes out of Josh's mouth when he's talking about the revolution doesn't sound like it's personalized. He's just spewing words to push the player in the direction the game/David Cage wants. Where's the personality? Where's the fucking motive behind his words???

Anyways, I could talk on and one about how unfair that shit is but that would be too depressing.

JOSH

I've talked about Josh here and there but never this indepth

From what we see of Josh, he's pretty opinionated. Just like North, he has his own set of beliefs and he's willing to die for them. Unlike North though, we never know why. And sure, he doesn't have to spell out all his motivations but it would have been nice if we'd known why he so strongly believes freedom can be won with dialogue. Especially in a world that is determined to prove him wrong.

Because ignore how happy the pacifist ending looks, there's androids still being executed while Markus is giving his hopeful speech. And the ending tag literally says "androids won their freedom. For now." What kind of ominous sentence is that?

Anyway, Josh reminds me of Rose; pacifism that exists not because the person is naive but they've choosen peace while being surrounded by violence. In DBH, choosen violence is easier and it pays off more. So while that doesn't necessarily make it the wrong option, it does make the people who go against it stand out.

But also, his stance could come from a place of fear. There's also that to consider. Maybe he's scared of what the humans will do if the revolution kicks off and he'll prefer they stay silent. Because that's his reasoning against the Stratford Mission

He's the one that expresses hesitance the most to the other missions Markus assigns. North is usually the first to agree with Simon agreeing too. But then in Freedom March, Josh is all for the March but Simon (later on) and North are hesitant. It makes me think Josh prefers taking risks when he's sure it'll actually pay off. Because like he says, that mall and the surrounding areas will go down in history. No matter the outcomes.

We also don't know anything about his past except that he was a university lecturer and hot attacked by his students. It's a shame this information doesn't come from Josh himself but from the character gallery. I wonder how long he's been teaching for?

His relationship with Markus is also very impersonal. He doesn't seem to like him much no matter which route you take but will somewhat tolerate him if he's pacifist. I think they're differences are beyond what Markus chooses for the revolution. He also doesn't like North much and Markus and North have a few things in common; they're action oriented, have a tendency to take risks with unknown chances of it paying off and Josh might not like that the risks they're taking could mean the end of android life if it fails.

He starts to warm up to him in night of the soul though but Markus has to save him first.

This adds to my theory that Josh chooses peace because he's cautious. He doesn't like the risky decisions Markus makes because he's scared of the consequences.

SIMON

I think Simon falls somewhere in the middle of the Violence - Pacifist scale. I wouldn't say neutrality (it's not the word I'm looking for🤔) but being able to go both ways should the need arise. Some people in the fandom frame him as a coward and I think that proves to be incorrect when you start thinking about it.

He's usually not vocally opposed to any options the player chooses and will be supportive. If you choose violence, he's ready to fight but if you choose pacifism he's also ready to march. But, he chooses to back down in some moments: high risk moments with opportunity to retreat.

It's almost like he's willing to take risks but when there isn't much on the line.

He agrees to missions when it just his life and the lives of the other three at stake but when something greater is on the line, he backs down. For instance, he'll agree to the spare parts mission, but will express hesitance after the bags of thirium have been gathered. His reasoning is because he doesn't want to lose the spare parts they've gotten and the mission be for nothing.

"We can’t bring them back with us. It’s too dangerous!"

"This is suicide, Markus. Our bags are full. We got what we came for, let's go before they catch us."

Hmm.

And in the freedom march chapter, he agrees at first. Not strongly though. He simply suggests if Markus wants to go through with the March, he should convert more androids to increase his chances of success. He disagrees later on; after he realizes that things might not go well and with the hundreds of androids gathered, that means more casualties.

"And dying here won’t solve anything. Markus, we need to go, now, before it’s too late."

It's insanely difficult to get a read on the guy though: he's really non vocal. He hovers in the background during conversations, only getting involved when it looks like conversations are getting heated. Does that make him the glue of the team?

He's also been in Jericho the longest of the four. Unlike Josh we never even know what he operated as before deviancy but I guess it's easy to see that he was most likely taking care of a child. If he's also been there for a while, did he have some form of "power" in Jericho? I like to think so.

But North also seems important too but she hasn't been in Jericho for very long so I can't say I see her as the pre revolution leader. She gets her opportunity to shine when Markus arrives and she's suited for more action oriented leadership. She seemed eager to get out and do stuff; if she was Jericho's leader before the game starts, it would show.

I wonder if Simon had a similar experience with Daniel though. But instead of acting on his feelings of betrayal, he choose to run away instead.

That's about as much as I can think of for Josh and Simon while still remaining within canon. Outside canon though, it opens a world of possibilities. I suppose it's no secret that I'm not a big fan of Simon's fanon characterization (especially in relation to Markus and how their relationship tends to take on tones of racial prejudice) so I won't be talking about that.

But Josh though, I can talk about him——he's an almost blank slate in the fandom since people tend to forget him.

Hey, I'm the "soft boy" anon. I think a lot of people have been misreading/misrepresenting what I said. I said "trans boys who explore those identities" not "all feminine trans boys identify that way". I don't identify as a sissy or a femboy, but I've met trans mascs that do (a decent amount, actually, when it comes to femboy). I'm fine with soft boy or twink, though I only use those terms with people I like and trust. I know I'm not the only trans man who calls himself a soft boy or a twink, though, so I still think it's not okay to talk about them in a way that sounds like you're disgusted by the existence of the terms (like referring to the whole thing as bullshit). I also have these terms applied to me whether I want them be or not, because I fit the general definitions (especially because twink is a lot about body type, there's nothing I can do about that). Even if I choose not to use these terms people would apply them to me, not only because I'm trans but because I fit the general definition. I know when people talk about those groups they're often talking about people like me. So when I hear about them talked about with general contempt or disgust it really bothers me, especially when used alongside words like "sissy" and "bullshit" it really bothers me. I appreciate the anger that exists against these terms being forced (trust me, I really do) and I understand anger stuff like "I'm not your soft boy" or "don't fit me into the twink box" but I'd appreciate if efforts to separate from those terms didn't include discussing them with disgust or contempt. I know you try to use better language and really appreciate it, but next time you get an ask talking about "sofboy twink bullshit" or "sissy femboy" maybe you to be careful throwing those terms around in anger? I have a lot of complex feelings about femininity and I also hate feeling trapped being feminine because I'm trans. That can really easily turn into self-loathing for me because in many ways I am naturally "feminine" and this is made much worse by how society constantly, constantly demeans feminine men. I just wish I didn't have to see it in trans spaces, too. I was hurt and upset when I sent that first ask because this stuff hurts, but I don't think anything I said was wrong. I was speaking for myself as a feminine trans boy and I'm not taking that back. I know these are complex issues and all of the trans community has trauma around gender being forced on us in different ways. I just ask that when people throw their anger around they take a moment to consider what they actually want to aim at. I don't think at any point in my ask I used insulting terms to refer to masculine men because that would be wrong, too.

Yeah, I get the sense that there were about a dozen funky misinterpretations of very basic aspects of what you were saying. Hopefully I communicated the lines there in an understandable way, but I’m gonna post this too so you can like, settle it in your own words.

The whole conversation’s been a little chaotic, and it seems like there wasn’t much confusion between you & I at least, so I’m gonna tap out of this one unless you specifically have other things you want me to hear. Thanks for explaining things and lending your voice to the conversation. 💙