I’m glad you’ve discarded that theory – I was hoping you were joking by mentioning it at all, since if you honestly regarded that as serious evidence for a rational discussion, there would be no point in continuing.
On Gnashblade abusing a monopoly: You keep thinking that there’s two states: “behave” or “make things so bad that people will rebel”. This is a major fallacy. I’m going to pull some numbers out of my donkey here – I’m being that upfront about it because it doesn’t matter just what the numbers are – just that the thresholds exist, and it’s easier to use actual numbers rather than dancing around quoting specific numbers.
Let’s say the BLTC’s current “cut” is about 10%, between listing price and exchange fees. I think that’s about correct, I haven’t actually done the figures. Being the savvy businessman, Gnashblade has probably set the prices as high as he can without encouraging competitors to appear providing cheaper alternatives.
Now, let’s say that the cut required for people to go into armed revolt is 50%. That’s a serious markup, I know, but seriously – most sane people are going to consider going to a competitor LONG before they start rioting on the streets. So if he manages to push through legislation forbidding competition, then he’s free to raise the Black Lion’s cut to anything between those two thresholds. The cost of business for everyone who isn’t BLTC, or who doesn’t have some special deal with them, goes up accordingly, and everyone except those two exceptions loses. Even if he doesn’t use such legislature to raise prices at all, a guaranteed monopoly prevents anyone from trying to undercut him and gives him little incentive to lower prices when otherwise competition might push him to do so.
No, we don’t know with 100% certainty that he’d do this. In fact, I commented myself in another thread that Gnashblade is currently a thin sheet of a few tidbits of dialogue and information over an empty vessel that people are filling with their own imagination. However, what we DO know indicate that he would if he could get away with it.
He’s noted for being a ruthless businessman, and making use of a political position to better his business at the expense of competition is something a ruthless businessman would do. His actions during the candidate trial suggest that he’s looking for self-interest, not philanthropy (yes, I understand why there are practical issues why he might have made that choice without being a money-grubbing victim, but it’s certainly not a mark in his favour). We know that, despite being richer than the Consortium, he did nothing during the refugee crisis, either to provide aid for himself or to intervene on the refugees’ behalf with the Consortium. Apart from his deciding that it was better not to attempt intimidation tactics against a city with a proud pirate tradition, this is basically all that we know about his personality, and what that’s pointing to suggests that he would not be averse to using power for his own gain at the expense of someone else’s.
What motivation would he have to build and abuse a legislated monopoly? Profit. What motivation would he have to not do so, given the opportunity? Altruism. Now, seriously… which of those motivations do you think drives Evon more?
No, we can’t say for certain what he’d do… but that’s because at this stage we really don’t know squat about his personality. But what we do know suggests that he’s looking out primarily for himself and abuse of power for his own profit is at least a credible risk. There are good reasons why, in most stable democracies, people in office have to divest themselves of all investments that might lead to a conflict of interest between their own investments and the national good.
To those who think Scarlet hate means she’s succeeded as a villain:
People don’t hate Scarlet like Game of Thrones fans hate Joffrey.
They hate her the way Star Wars fans hate Jar Jar Binks.
