Right, and in truth whacking the wealthiest shareholders employing the CEOs would be smarter. Far fewer targets. Far more direct symbolism.
It would underscores greed itself as the true target, so the more wealth they have accumulated, the larger the target on their back.
Killing the most blood-soaked CEOs certainly sends a message that actions have consequences, but they’re already hired to take blame and this just extends the hazards into the existential dimension, because the vast majority CEOs are just goons of the true mobsters, who can always add hazard pay if CEOs are more hesitant to operate their orphan crushing machines due to a rise in vigilante justice.
The wealthiest shareholders, on the other hand, profit the most on the suffering inflicted by their companies, and will continue to do so after they hire the evil CEO’s replacement. So it makes more sense to target these mob bosses.
Right, and in truth whacking the wealthiest shareholders employing the CEOs would be smarter. Far fewer targets. Far more direct symbolism.
It would underscores greed itself as the true target, so the more wealth they have accumulated, the larger the target on their back.
Killing the most blood-soaked CEOs certainly sends a message that actions have consequences, but they’re already hired to take blame and this just extends the hazards into the existential dimension, because the vast majority CEOs are just goons of the true mobsters, who can always add hazard pay if CEOs are more hesitant to operate their orphan crushing machines due to a rise in vigilante justice.
The wealthiest shareholders, on the other hand, profit the most on the suffering inflicted by their companies, and will continue to do so after they hire the evil CEO’s replacement. So it makes more sense to target these mob bosses.
Edit: …hypothetically