I see. Sounds like hiring some lawyers to tighten up those statutes once to reduce recurring future costs might be a solid investment.

Hey, you earned it by virtue of your own merits, buddy. You hardly owe me thanks when you're the one made the achievement.

Thanks. I literally cannot tell you how riveting this conservation's been. Interacting with you has been a rare pleasure that has really brightened up my day in a way nothing else in my recent memory has managed.

At least now the US has a house and senate that might actually do their job and act as a check on unfettered executive power.

Which you should absolutely do yourself the favor of watching.

Oh, that's lovely work.

I hereby propose xxce2AAb 's Law: There's no opinion so self-evidently true, utterly commonsensical and entirely uncontroversial that at least one dickhead on The Internet won't find a way to be mortally offended by it.

...Including this comment, obviously.

To the complete surprise of absolutely no one with the cognitive capability to put a pair of pants on.

Yeah, I suppose. It's not that I can't see a place for layers in the process. If there were reasons to suspect actual wrongdoing, the stakeholders sending in the lawyers to deal with might well be a real legal issue makes sense. To use them as observers to look for potential wrongdoing just seems like jumping straight to DEFCON 1 though. It just comes across a little like whipping out a gun before it's even certain there's gonna be a fight, you know?

If they volunteered to do it for free, that's another matter of course.

Hard to disagree with that. Furthermore, it'd be lovely if that was equally true for everybody else too.

Less likely than spontaneous pink unicorns happening, but definitely lovely.

I don't really understand why lawyers are being used as election observers. Seems expensive and unnecessary.

The tech-bros wanted Cyberpunk, and Merc raids on high-value Corp convoys are integral to the genre.