Murphy in Peace Talks (WoJ spoilers)

[huangjimmy108]

It depends on the fine print of the agreement or bargain..  Anyone knows that is Fae Bargaining 101..  The Fae cannot lie, but they know how to bargain to their advantage..  Mab told Harry to "assist"  Nic, but that doesn't mean he is under Nic's command... That give Harry some wiggle room, he didn't have to kill Butters, only take him out of the action.. By bodily throwing him into Michael's yard, he was removed from the action as effectively as if he had killed him...  Harry also said clearly how it could be explained, he is incompetent, or just unlucky.. And since it was all part of a ploy on Nic's part, his intent was never to kill Harry, nobody really violated anything..

I can confidently say that this interpretation of events and this kind of understanding of the mechanics of the deal is wrong beyond doubt.

Do you know how I could be so confident?

Because Harry believe that he'll be killed by Nick. If he knew Nick can't kill him, there is no need for Harry to be so hesitant to help Butters. Obviously, Murphy see things the same way. Michael too. If Michael does not think that both Murphy and Harry are in mortal danger, if Nick truly can't kill them, he won't be sacrificing himself and offer to come out from his home.

At least 3 story characters see things differently from your interpretation. All 3 characters judge that Nick can and will kill Harry. Only Nicodemous say that he does not really mean to kill Harry, though he compare this to Harry really meaning to kill Butters. We all know the value of the word of a denarian, even if we discount Nicodemous mocking and sarcastic tone when saying it.

The understanding of 3 characters on the one hand: Murphy, Harry and Michael. Neither of them are idiots, and the word of freaking Nicodemous on the other hand. Even with half a brain, I know which one I should trust.

[DonBugen]

OK, first thing – Mira, some of the things you said weren’t true.  Harry is under Nick’s command as he is commanded by Mab to offer Nick what aid he requires.  Second, him moving Butters into Michael’s yard is in no way similar to him killing Butters; Nicodemus states that Butters must die because he’s a threat to their operations: not only does he know too much, but he’s affiliated with Marcone, their target.  Moving him to the yard does nothing to resolve this situation.

Actually no. What matters is not the intent nor the act. What matters is the result.

You say potato, I say po-tah-to.  Sure, I’ll agree to that.  They mean the same.

I mention "Intent" because you argue that Mab could lawyer herself out of her word by using a mere excuse like "Harry forzaring Butters is an honest attempt to kill him".

Nope.  I lawyer myself with the mere excuse that “Harry Forzare-ing Butters does not in itself signify a refusal to kill him.”  This puts him out of Nicodemus’ reach, but still perfectly killable by Dresden.  Now, if Nick’s last command was “Stand aside so I can end him for you,” then he would be defying Nicodemus.

In this context of argument, intent matters, because in order to be able to do this Mab need to misperceive Harry's intent and do it intentionally.

Nope.  She merely has to point out that he neither disobeyed a direct command nor offered him violence.

By the way, GP and the unceli accords are bad examples.

The unseelie accords are excellent examples.  As a guide for etiquette between powers written by Mab herself, it gives us an excellent view into her interpretation of treachery and underhandedness.  Similar to her laws at Harry’s party, adhering to the letter of the law is what is important, not the spirit of the law.  And it is not an insult to her character to use this; as it is her law, it is evidence.

In the case of Harry's birthday party, The rule is simple: As long as there is no blood spilled on the floor, Mab is cool with it. In this case, result matters. Is there blood spilled on the floor? That is all that matters. Mab did not care about the rest. Maeve can have all the intent to kill Harry, and she can take all action to achieve her intent, but so long as no blood is actually spilled, Mab won't care.

Yes!  Absolutely.  This is exactly my point.  Mab didn’t swoop in and kill Harry and the Redcap before the end of the fight, just because it was probable that blood would be shed; she stepped in when the deed was done.  And at this point, Harry has not yet disobeyed Nick.

Again, Harry can do anything here. He can even actually help Butters to escape and he'll be find, so long as Butters is caught or killed in the end, Harry will be fulfilling the deal.

Yup!  Thank you for arguing my point.

The moment Butters cross over Michael's fence line, once it is determine beyond a doubt that he won't die, Harry already broken the deal. And no, you can't argue that there is no time limit to end Butters, because there is a limit, though it may not be a time limit. Remember book 10, Eldest gruf told Harry that the moment Harry leave the island and into Chicago, eldest gruf won't go after him anymore. The matter is ended there and eldest gruf would be considered failing the task. The same in Butters's case. Butters must die before a certain limit or Harry will be considered as  fail. The carriage will return back into a pumpkin at midnight, for example. There is always a limit.

Crossing Michael’s fence does not determine beyond a doubt that he won’t die.  It only determines that Nicodemus won’t be holding the axe that does it.  You are correct, though, that there is a time limit; I was mistaken to say that Harry could come back years later.  Nick states that the reason for ending Butters is due to the danger he poses from the operation and his connection with Marcone; one would assume that as soon as Butters is away from the conflict and in a position to contact others, he would be out of play and Harry’s opportunity to follow Nicodemus’ commands would be over.

So he’s not disobeyed just yet.  Until Butters gets up and runs into the house, Harry (or, I suppose, Murphy) could still shoot him.  They’re both mortals and wouldn’t be affected by the angelic protection.

In the birthday party case. If it is Harry who spill blood on the floor and not some sidhe, do you think Mab would just kill Harry?

Um, yes.  Absolutely.  She is Mab, not some sort of mortal ruler that will be so completely disrespected by that.  Her Knight disobey her law, thumb his nose at it as if he was somehow an equal to him?  She would visit such horrors on him that he could not comprehend, and when he died, she would find a knight that would actually follow orders.  Maybe Thomas.

I mean, come on.  Mab’s already made it clear that she will not tolerate a knight in rebellion.  Santa Claus warns Harry of the same exact thing – don’t disrespect her in front of others.  Besides, Sarissa’s pretty clear that Harry needs to follow these laws on pain of death.

“Not quite.  There are two laws all must follow under pain of death.”

“Only two?  Man, how do unseelie lawyers make a living?”

“First,” Sarissa said, ignoring my wiseassery, “Blood may not be spilled upon the floor of the court without the Queen’s expressed command.”

“No murder without getting a nod first, got it.  Second?”

“No one may speak to the queen without her expressed command.”

I snorted.  “Seriously?  Because I’m not much for keeping my mouth shut.  In fact, I’m pretty sure I physically can’t.  Probably because I was influenced at an impressionable age.  Did you ever read any Spider-Man comics when you were-“

“Harry,” Sarissa said, her voice suddenly tight.  She put her hand on my arm, and her lean fingers were like heavy wires.  “No one speaks to the Queen,” she whispered intently.  ”No one.  Not even the lady Maeve dares disobey that law.”  She shuddered.  “I’ve seen what happens.  We all have.”

And onto the last one…

Breaking the simple truce is bad enough, breaking Mab's promise is absolutely deadly for Harry, and Harry has broken both at once. A price must be paid to cover this breach. By breaking fid, Murphy with Michael's help cover this gap.

No – the breaking of Fidelacchius is not some sort of offering in order to cover a debt that Harry incurred to Nicodemus.  It doesn’t work like that.  The truce between them is in effect until such time as Harry helps Nicodemus remove the contents of a vault.  Once broken, it’s broken.  Besides, Nick earned that breaking of the sword by his actions; he worked his butt off to get it.  It was no offering given as recompense.

[Mira]

OK, first thing – Mira, some of the things you said weren’t true.  Harry is under Nick’s command as he is commanded by Mab to offer Nick what aid he requires.  Second, him moving Butters into Michael’s yard is in no way similar to him killing Butters; Nicodemus states that Butters must die because he’s a threat to their operations: not only does he know too much, but he’s affiliated with Marcone, their target.  Moving him to the yard does nothing to resolve this situation.

Sort of.... Yes, she did command him to follow Nic's instructions and aid him..  Harry says to her that she knows that Nic isn't going to honor any truce and that he'd betray Harry and try to kill him.. And Mab answered.

"Of course, she said.  " I expect superior, more creative treachery on your part."  "While still keeping your word and helping him?" I demanded.."Her smile sharpened.  "Is it not quite the game?"  she asked. "In my younger days, I would relish such a novel challenge."

So yeah, loop holes and after it was over Sword broken, Murphy shattered, Nic laughed it was all a ruse, he never really was going to kill Harry..  And Harry realized he didn't violate anything either, he could claim bad luck and incompetence..  No rules really broken, the mission was still on... Mab's real instructions were for Harry to pull off the double cross.. That is why the book was called Skin Game..

[peregrine]

So yeah, loop holes and after it was over Sword broken, Murphy shattered, Nic laughed it was all a ruse, he never really was going to kill Harry.. 

Because he was lying.

Unless, of course, Harry's overriding goal in giving pursuit of Butters was to shut him up, and not to try to help him escape.  (Spoiler alert, it's the latter.)

[Mira]

Because he was lying.

Unless, of course, Harry's overriding goal in giving pursuit of Butters was to shut him up, and not to try to help him escape.  (Spoiler alert, it's the latter.)

But Nic wasn't lying, not about setting Murphy up.. He didn't give a crap about whether or not Butters was killed.  At that point Butters was of no importance to him, he knew very well that Harry wasn't going to kill Butters on his orders.  Butters mistrust of Harry played into his hands and he took full advantage. It did give him an excuse to look like he was about to have Harry killed, as he pointed out Genoskwa could have done it in seconds if that was his real aim.  It wasn't, it was to set off Murphy... Upon which knowing how she really felt, he could then goad her into breaking the Sword, which he did..   Harry acknowledged the facts of what he said and how it would all be seen by Mab.   

[Arjan]

Because he was lying.

When Nicodemus has a good motive to lie he will do so. It is in his nature, it is what he does. He even lies when it is against his interest for example when he stated his goals to Harry. Lies and betrayal are what they do, they can't help it. It is their nature.

He may add some truths to make it believable but you can safely assume his essential message is a lie. Especially if he has good motives for it and here he can achieve several  goals by lying.

Never use Nicodemus statements as proof for anything except maybe the opposite of what he is saying.

[jonas]

When Nicodemus has a good motive to lie he will do so. It is in his nature, it is what he does. He even lies when it is against his interest for example when he stated his goals to Harry. Lies and betrayal are what they do, they can't help it. It is their nature.

He may add some truths to make it believable but you can safely assume his essential message is a lie. Especially if he has good motives for it and here he can achieve several  goals by lying.

Never use Nicodemus statements as proof for anything except maybe the opposite of what he is saying.

I have trouble thinking of anytime that it's shown Nic has outright willfully lied about something. He tends to play it like the fae in that regard, he knows the game well at hand.

[huangjimmy108]

OK, first thing – Mira, some of the things you said weren’t true.  Harry is under Nick’s command as he is commanded by Mab to offer Nick what aid he requires.  Second, him moving Butters into Michael’s yard is in no way similar to him killing Butters; Nicodemus states that Butters must die because he’s a threat to their operations: not only does he know too much, but he’s affiliated with Marcone, their target.  Moving him to the yard does nothing to resolve this situation.
You say potato, I say po-tah-to.  Sure, I’ll agree to that.  They mean the same.
Nope.  I lawyer myself with the mere excuse that “Harry Forzare-ing Butters does not in itself signify a refusal to kill him.”  This puts him out of Nicodemus’ reach, but still perfectly killable by Dresden.  Now, if Nick’s last command was “Stand aside so I can end him for you,” then he would be defying Nicodemus.
Nope.  She merely has to point out that he neither disobeyed a direct command nor offered him violence.
The unseelie accords are excellent examples.  As a guide for etiquette between powers written by Mab herself, it gives us an excellent view into her interpretation of treachery and underhandedness.  Similar to her laws at Harry’s party, adhering to the letter of the law is what is important, not the spirit of the law.  And it is not an insult to her character to use this; as it is her law, it is evidence.
Yes!  Absolutely.  This is exactly my point.  Mab didn’t swoop in and kill Harry and the Redcap before the end of the fight, just because it was probable that blood would be shed; she stepped in when the deed was done.  And at this point, Harry has not yet disobeyed Nick.
Yup!  Thank you for arguing my point.
Crossing Michael’s fence does not determine beyond a doubt that he won’t die.  It only determines that Nicodemus won’t be holding the axe that does it.  You are correct, though, that there is a time limit; I was mistaken to say that Harry could come back years later.  Nick states that the reason for ending Butters is due to the danger he poses from the operation and his connection with Marcone; one would assume that as soon as Butters is away from the conflict and in a position to contact others, he would be out of play and Harry’s opportunity to follow Nicodemus’ commands would be over.

So he’s not disobeyed just yet.  Until Butters gets up and runs into the house, Harry (or, I suppose, Murphy) could still shoot him.  They’re both mortals and wouldn’t be affected by the angelic protection.
Um, yes.  Absolutely.  She is Mab, not some sort of mortal ruler that will be so completely disrespected by that.  Her Knight disobey her law, thumb his nose at it as if he was somehow an equal to him?  She would visit such horrors on him that he could not comprehend, and when he died, she would find a knight that would actually follow orders.  Maybe Thomas.

I mean, come on.  Mab’s already made it clear that she will not tolerate a knight in rebellion.  Santa Claus warns Harry of the same exact thing – don’t disrespect her in front of others.  Besides, Sarissa’s pretty clear that Harry needs to follow these laws on pain of death.



And onto the last one…

No – the breaking of Fidelacchius is not some sort of offering in order to cover a debt that Harry incurred to Nicodemus.  It doesn’t work like that.  The truce between them is in effect until such time as Harry helps Nicodemus remove the contents of a vault.  Once broken, it’s broken.  Besides, Nick earned that breaking of the sword by his actions; he worked his butt off to get it.  It was no offering given as recompense.

If Butters did indeed die, this argument of yours would at least carry some plausibility. But Butters did not die, and supposedly he won't die, at least not in the context of the heist. In this case, Harry already broke the deal even before Nick order an attack inside Hades's vault. It is stupid to believe that the time limit can be stretch so far.

And I repeat. Harry, Murphy, Michael and Butters absolutely believed that Nick can and would kill them. It is clear in their words and actions. Harry even specifically mention the word "Quid pro quo" in his innor monolog.

At the end of the day, all of this are mere interpretations and the book held the final answer. Sure, you can interprete as much as you like, you can even say that this is all something Mab and Nicodemous constructed in a long game to trick Harry. With the limited first person PoV, such speculation are still possible even though the probability is near zero.

The only text support for this interpretation of yours is Nick's word about not really wanting to kill Harry, something that Nick himself compare with Harry's sincerity in trying to kill Butters. He might as well confess wanting to kill Harry with that comparison. Even if we discount that mocking comparison Nick made, with Nick's status as a denarian scum with no honor, his word's value can be weigh in shit.

In order for this interpretation of yours to be true, we have to ignore text evidence from 4 high intelligent and credible main characters, all of them pointed to the fact that Nick can and would kill Harry,  in favor of a single sentence from a villain character with the worse reputation possible.

It is sheer Lunacy.

[Mira]

I have trouble thinking of anytime that it's shown Nic has outright willfully lied about something. He tends to play it like the fae in that regard, he knows the game well at han

And he didn't lie, he was gloating because his plan worked so very well.. 

And I repeat. Harry, Murphy, Michael and Butters absolutely believed that Nick can and would kill them. It is clear in their words and actions. Harry even specifically mention the word "Quid pro quo" in his innor monolog.

Which is why it was a perfect ruse....  A ruse is only as good as the belief of those upon whom it is pulled on..

In order for this interpretation of yours to be true, we have to ignore text evidence from 4 high intelligent and credible main characters, all of them pointed to the fact that Nick can and would kill Harry,  in favor of a single sentence from a villain character with the worse reputation possible.

We all know that Nic and and will try to kill Harry, no one is doubting that.. But at that particular moment, killing him wouldn't have served Nic's purpose... It was a ruse, a very successful ruse because all four of your main characters believed it.   

When Harry says it was a quid pro quo action, it is how he believes Mab will see the events...  Actions and reactions matched each other, neither he nor Nic got hurt...  No agreement broken... 

Nic ordered Butters killed.... Harry didn't do it.. Agreement broken?  Apparently not

Nic orders Harry killed... Should of been done in an instant, no running attack from  Murphy would really stop that..  Broken agreement?  No, Harry is still alive...

Harry complains that Nic attacked Murphy... He points out he didn't guarantee her safety and she attacked first.. He says he is being reasonable, Harry agrees from Mab's point of view, he was...

As to time limits to the order to kill Butters... Since the whole thing was under the umbrella of double crossing vengeance set up by Mab and Marcone with the help of others upon Nic... It is doubtful that Nic's orders to Harry to kill Butters really extend beyond that moment..

[Arjan]

I have trouble thinking of anytime that it's shown Nic has outright willfully lied about something. He tends to play it like the fae in that regard, he knows the game well at hand.

“First,” I said, “Nicodemus is after something powerful. I don’t know what it is, but I do know that if I can get him to tell us what he’s after, it’s going to be a lie. He’d never let anyone know his true goal if he could help it.”
“I concur,” Kringle said.

Not only is Nicodemus a liar, Harry's strategy is based on it and Kringle agrees. Mark that if Nicodemus had not lied he would have had his favorite artifact and not the grail. Nicodemus lies even if it works against him.

The same in small favor. Harry's strategy is based on Nicodemus breaking the truce because denarians will always break their word, will always lie.

So in a situation where Nicodemus has something to gain and is difficult to check he will tell anything that suits him and his words can not be used to prove anything.

[Mira]

   

Not only is Nicodemus a liar, Harry's strategy is based on it and Kringle agrees. Mark that if Nicodemus had not lied he would have had his favorite artifact and not the grail. Nicodemus lies even if it works against him.

That's true as to what he was really after, which wasn't the Grail... However it doesn't automatically follow that he was lying about his actions at Michael's house being a ploy to get a Holy Sword broken..  It just confirms how clever and tricky he can be, the ploy caused Murphy to panic, which was his aim.  The ploy was made all the more effective because of the mistrust of Butters inadvertently helping to set it up ..  That is why Nic gloated afterwards, he'd taken out the help Harry was counting on and he took out a Holy Sword without consequences to himself as far as the deal with Mab was concerned... What he hadn't counted on was Uriel lending his Grace to Michael, thus Harry gained the back up of a real Knight of the Cross.

The same in small favor. Harry's strategy is based on Nicodemus breaking the truce because denarians will always break their word, will always lie.

Harry's strategy was also based on knowing one of Nic's aims it to destroy a Holy Sword, so he offered one as a bargaining chip..  If you want to go that route, Murphy should have been smart enough to see though Nic's ploy, but she panicked.. Harry saw through it too, but too late to stop her, also he wasn't allowed to stop her...

" I saw it coming, what Nicodemus was doing.  I tried to warn her, but as I began to speak, the Genoskwa rapped my head back against the minivan and nothing came out."

Again, if the aim was really to kill Harry in that moment, and if the excuse was Harry failed to kill Butters on his orders... Harry would have been killed, broken Sword and Murphy added bonus... But that didn't happen, as soon as the Sword was broken  and the snot beaten out of Murphy, Harry was let go.. 

So in a situation where Nicodemus has something to gain and is difficult to check he will tell anything that suits him and his words can not be used to prove anything.

That is really laughable since his aim has always been to break a Holy Sword or get one out of commission... That's no lie, and rubbing a little salt in Harry's wounds in the process by gloating about his success is typical...

[Arjan]

That is really laughable since his aim has always been to break a Holy Sword or get one out of commission... That's no lie,

Prove? There is none.

and rubbing a little salt in Harry's wounds in the process by gloating about his success is typical...

That is the whole point. He is saying these words to rub salt in Harry's wounds not because they are true. He would have said them if they were false as well if they were equally effective. So these words prove nothing.

[peregrine]

Simple question.  When Harry gives chase to Butters, is his goal to keep Butters from getting killed, or is his goal to silence Butters for the good of the mission?  Not, "Can he do both" or "Is there a way to keep Butters alive without breaking Mab's word" but what is his overriding goal?

Is it "Keep Butters alive?"  Yes.  Yes it is.  At no point does he consider how to do it without violating the agreement between Nic and Mab.  He just wants to save Butters.

Which means that he WAS trying to break Mab's word.  Which means that when Nic says his ploy was no more a true attack than Harry's actions were a violation of Mab's word, he's saying it's the exact same thing.  He's just gloating over how he can spin it to get away with no repercussions. 

[dspringer1]

Just to be clear.  Harry is commanded to help Nik with his operations.  He is NOT commanded to obey Nik.  The two are NOT the same thing, although most times they deliver the same results.  Evidence: 
*  Harry refused to kill Butters
*  Harry closed the portal back to the real world -- and Nik obviously did not order him to reopen it even those such an order was totally in Nik's best interests. 

[Mr. Death]

OK, don’t have much time, but I’ll quickly respond to each in turn.So, if Mab’s not watching, and the little folk aren’t reliable, and Nicodemus kills Harry AND Karrin AND Butters, and it’s just Nicodemus and the Genoskwa’s word…  this somehow makes Nicodemus’ word more reliable?

Yes, by default.

Did Ortega need to provide a body of evidence when he justified the Red Court going to war?

Did Harry have to provide a body of evidence before turning Madrigal Raith into abstract art over killing low-level practitioners?

Nicodemus has the only real remaining witnesses to Harry's pursuit of Butters, and he has plain and simple logic on his side -- there are at least half a dozen ways Harry could have easily killed Butters and both he and Mab know that.

Mab can't just go, "I don't like you, so I'm not going to believe you." That would be tantamount to admitting she wasn't going to uphold her end of the favor, and that's something a Faerie can't do and expect to keep her power.

Not all little folk are as completely ditzy as dewdrop faeries.  The Cobbs who live at the Carpenters’ house, for example, are far more level-headed and intelligent but just have an extreme obsession with shoes.  We just see a lot of ditzy faeries because that’s who seems to be attracted by Dresden’s pizza bribery.  Lacuna has a bit more intelligence than Toot, for example, and her fairy death squad are a bit more capable than Toot’s as well.

The Cobbs who were all but blackmailed into scouting out a couple Black Court vampires? They're not going anywhere near a fight like Harry's.

The Little Folk are good at what they do when they're given very specific instructions and you're not expecting a lot. They're not little stenographers recording a play-by-play of a chase scene that goes across half the city.

Remember that in Skin Game, when Harry asks Karrin if she’s going to bring in the swords, he still thinks that she sees him being turned into a monster.  It’s not until his first talk with Michael that he realizes that the reason why Karrin only went to the island a handful of times is because it’s a terribly psychologically scarring place.  Why would he ask to be the custodian at that point?  From his point of view, what’s changed?

It's not about how he views it. It's about how he thinks and acts. Harry's not going to consciously think, "I don't want the Swords back, therefore I should have the Swords back," because that's self-contradictory.

From what I've seen, custodianship of the Swords is something that needs to be offered, not asked for.

You’re getting the order wrong.  When Harry confronted Michael in his workshop, he gave Michael no evidence that the shadow was gone.  He just asked Michael to trust him, to have faith.  Michael doesn’t actually see evidence that the shadow is gone until they’re on Demonreach, surrounded by Denarians, with Dresden holding a sword of faith and acting as if he’s going to make it vulnerable and break it.  You don’t get to that point unless you have faith that your friend is telling the truth.

Michael also had the fact that Harry had been acting like Harry for the past several years; he didn't have, for instance, Harry having broken into a friend's house and injured someone to steal a powerful magical artifact.

It’s stated several times in the books since Small Favor that the angelic guard is part of Michael’s retirement package.  In other words, Dresden picked up the coin before there were a dozen angels poised to attack the yard.  Otherwise, how could Gruffs have attacked in the beginning of Small Favor, or the Fetches in Proven Guilty?

Fair, I'd forgotten that.

That’s a weak argument.  It’s several orders of magnitude easier to prepare to pick up a Denarian’s coin than to have prepared for “If Butters follows us and listens in and is caught, and we follow him through the city in order to save him, and I’m showing up late to the stalemate between Nicodemus and Dresden because a taxi caused me to swerve into a swimming pool, how best should I approach the situation?”

"Murphy prepares for everything" is also a weak argument, because it's not exactly true. She prepares as best she can, in general and specific when she can.

Anyway, you're getting way too hung up on a parenthetical question I made and it's distracting from the point. I wasn't making an assumption -- I was posing a question, because I honestly can't remember if she was wearing gloves.

So we agree on this, then?  Again, not saying that this is sunshine, daisies, and clear skies ahead, and not saying that there might not be a Knight-level of miracle needed to pull their butts out of the fire.  Karrin, holding the sword of faith, had no faith that doing the actions of a knight would save Dresden.  If she had put her faith in TWG, she would have called Nick’s bluff and broken this stalemate, and brought them to a different sort of conflict.  But if Karrin is actually acting as a knight should, then I think that she should have a knight’s superpower – that regardless of how difficult or dangerous the threat is, she always has the ability to overcome it.

The problem is still with your assumption that Nicodemus was bluffing at all. He's not. He has no reason to, because Harry absolutely did double cross him, and when Nicodemus talks about the "ploy," he is directly and explicitly likening his "ploy" story with Harry's "I was honestly trying to help stop Butters, honest," story.

Nicodemus knows he has the advantage in the situation, and like a cocky roulette player, he's letting it ride. He'd be happy with a "win" at any stage of it (Killing butters, killing Dresden, breaking the Sword, killing Michael, in order), so when he knows he's getting at least one, he goes for the others.

Honestly, though, if Murphy did "call his bluff" and it saved them, it wouldn't be because he was bluffing, but because Nic, Harry and probably even the Genoskwa would pause in sheer surprise.