In Your Vaste - Issue 25

A NEW DAWN: LETTING THE STREETS HANDLE THE STREET PROBLEMS

By Lord Whistledown of Bridgerton Estate

Conflict is the lifeblood of the underworld. Rivalries create stories, competition creates opportunity and the occasional outbreak of violence gives undertakers something to do between natural deaths.

The problem is not that America’s families fight. The problem is that every disagreement risks becoming a war from which the country never fully recovers.

We have seen the pattern before. Two or three families enter a conflict. Members are killed, headquarters are emptied and months of resentment are created within a matter of days. One side eventually emerges victorious, but victory often leaves the country with fewer active families and fewer people interested in rebuilding alongside those who remain.

The survivors do not always regroup. Some disappear, others wait for revenge, and the community returns to the same familiar position: a handful of dominant organisations surrounded by increasingly quiet streets.

Perhaps there is another way.

America’s families could establish a code recognising that not every personal dispute is a family matter. An argument between two lower ranking members should not automatically require every relative, associate and gunman in their respective organisations to choose a side.

If two people disagree over money, territory, trade or a personal insult, perhaps they should first be encouraged to settle it themselves.

They could negotiate compensation, arrange a trade, issue a public challenge or agree upon a duel. They might conduct their rivalry through business, words or street-level violence. The precise method would be theirs to determine, provided both participants understood the terms and the boundaries.

Such an arrangement would give ordinary members greater freedom to create their own rivalries and stories. It would allow the streets to become a place where events happen rather than merely a noticeboard upon which leaders announce the existence of another organisation.

Most importantly, it would prevent every insult from becoming a declaration of war.

Naturally, limits would be required. Nobody is suggesting that members should be permitted to act without consequence or place their families in danger through reckless behaviour. Disputes involving senior figures, repeated attacks or matters affecting an entire organisation would still require the attention of leadership.

The families would need to agree upon where personal responsibility ends and collective responsibility begins. They would also need a shared understanding of which actions can be taken without dragging every headquarters in America into the conflict.

The guiding principle could be simple:

Let the streets handle street problems. Let the families handle family problems.

This would not eliminate bloodshed. Nor should it. Conflict, competition and danger are part of the world we inhabit. The purpose would be to contain disputes long enough for them to produce entertainment without immediately allowing them to destroy entire communities.

A personal rivalry could unfold over weeks. Businesses could compete. Challenges could be issued. Alliances could form between individuals. Victories, defeats and grudges could develop naturally rather than being interrupted by the immediate arrival of several family administrations and enough ammunition to depopulate a city.

Under such a code, an actual family war would carry greater significance. It would begin because of a serious disagreement between organisation; not because two associates argued over a trade on Tuesday and their leaders began exchanging gunfire by Wednesday.

War should remain possible. It simply should not be the first and only available answer.

This proposal is not an attempt to dictate how any family must operate. Every leader has different interests, every organisation has its own standards and every member understands that personal actions may carry consequences.

It is instead an invitation to consider what sort of country we want to inhabit in the long term.

Do we want a cycle in which conflict repeatedly removes families and players until only a few organisations remain? Or can we create a culture in which rivalry produces activity, stories and entertainment without constantly resetting the country to square one?

The details cannot be decided by one anonymous writer. Questions of rank, intervention, acceptable conduct and enforcement would require discussion among the families themselves.

But the principle is worth considering.

Allow individuals enough freedom to create conflict without immediately making their entire families responsible for it. Give leaders room to intervene when a dispute genuinely threatens their organisation. Reserve family wars for circumstances serious enough to justify their cost.

America does not need an end to conflict.

It needs conflict capable of surviving its own consequences.

I SAY, I SAY, I SAY, FOGHORN SILENCED: MURDER RAISES QUESTIONS OVER MIAMI’S QUIET FAMILY

By Vaste

The relative peace surrounding Miami’s criminal organisation was shattered following the killing of Foghorn_Leghorn, a consigliere serving under family leader Blaine.

The killing was reportedly carried out by Netomas. What remains unknown is why.

Blaine’s organisation has traditionally kept its affairs away from public view. While other families advertise their headquarters, announce their ambitions and discuss criminal cooperation within earshot of passing federal agents, Miami has largely remained quiet.

That silence now leaves the country with few clues about what happened to one of its highest-ranking members.

As consigliere, Foghorn was no ordinary associate who had wandered too close to somebody else’s dispute. He occupied a senior position within the Miami administration and would presumably have been trusted with its most sensitive decisions. His death therefore raises the possibility that the organisation’s outward calm concealed disagreements behind closed doors.

Was this an act of infighting? Had Foghorn fallen out with his own administration, become involved in a private rivalry or learned something that made his continued advice inconvenient?

If so, Miami’s famous silence may have been less a sign of peace and more the sound of arguments being conducted where the streets could not hear them.

There is, however, another possibility.

Foghorn may simply have found himself in the wrong place at the wrong time: an “innocent” bystander caught in an incident that had little to do with his position. In the underworld, innocence is a flexible term. It generally means nobody has yet explained which crime justified the body.

Netomas may have acted over a personal grievance, a misunderstood exchange or circumstances entirely unrelated to Blaine’s organisation. A senior title offers influence, but it does not protect its owner from bad timing, worse company or bullets intended to settle another matter.

Until either Miami or Netomas provides an explanation, both theories remain alive—unlike Foghorn.

The killing also presents Blaine with a difficult decision. If the consigliere was deliberately targeted because of his position, silence could be interpreted as weakness. If the death was accidental or personal, an aggressive response could transform one body into a wider conflict.

For an organisation that has avoided the spectacle of the streets, its next move may attract more attention than anything it has done before.

Will Blaine demand answers? Will Netomas explain the motive? Or will Miami close ranks and allow speculation to fill the silence?

Foghorn_Leghorn once held a position that required him to offer counsel from behind the scenes. In death, he has become the subject of a very public question.

Was there foul play inside Miami’s henhouse, or did this particular chicken simply cross the wrong road?

In Your Vaste has approached the relevant parties for comment. Until somebody decides to crow, the streets are left to draw their own conclusions.

FROM DON TO DONE: HARRY LOSES LOS ANGELES OVER FORGOTTEN PROPERTY SALE

By Vaste

The criminal career of Los Angeles Don Harry suffered an extraordinary reversal this week after he was demoted to the rank of Thug—not because of betrayal, defeat or federal prosecution, but because he forgot to sell a building.

Harry had reportedly been authorised to leave Los Angeles so that another consigliere could be promoted and assume control of the city. The arrangement should have represented an orderly transfer of power between senior figures.

There was only one problem: Harry departed without selling his headquarters.

This modest administrative oversight transformed one of America’s established Dons into a common Thug with remarkable speed. A man who recently commanded an organisation must now work his way back through the criminal hierarchy, proving once again that paperwork has destroyed more promising careers than bullets ever could.

In Your Vaste understands that Harry successfully remembered to leave Los Angeles, surrender his position and make room for his successor. Remembering to dispose of the large criminal headquarters he left behind apparently proved one task too many.

The underworld is not traditionally known for complicated property law. Transactions generally involve cash, a handshake and an understanding that complaints regarding structural defects may be resolved in the basement. Nevertheless, even criminal real estate requires the owner to remember that the property exists.

Harry now leaves Los Angeles not as a respected former Don embarking upon a new chapter, but as a Thug whose previous management experience will look unusually impressive on applications for entry-level crime.

His fall also creates several practical difficulties. Former associates accustomed to calling him “Don Harry” must now adjust to “Harry,” “Thug Harry” or the technically accurate “that new fellow who used to own Los Angeles.” Anyone who previously kissed his ring is advised to check whether such courtesies remain appropriate at his current rank.

Fortunately, Harry has found accommodation with Atlanta’s Duluc Delinquents, where he will rebuild his career under Lord Farquaad.

The move creates one of the underworld’s most unusual leadership arrangements. Harry arrives with experience as a Don, while Farquaad provides experience in repeatedly explaining that he is one.

Sources suggest Harry’s first responsibilities may include guarding the golden crate, supervising unionised trampoline squires and retrieving important documents from shelves beyond the reach of senior management. His previous ownership of a headquarters may also qualify him to remind Farquaad which buildings belong to him and whether they should be sold before leaving the city.

Lord Farquaad is expected to welcome Harry as proof that the Duluc Delinquents can attract men who have occupied the highest levels of organised crime. Less generous observers may note that Harry no longer occupies those levels and is presently available for duties normally assigned to anyone capable of holding a broom.

For Harry, Atlanta offers an opportunity for redemption. His knowledge, connections and prior leadership experience should help him rise quickly, provided he remembers each required step and writes down anything involving property.

There is also something admirable about a former Don accepting the humiliation of beginning again. Many men who lose power disappear, complain or blame an elaborate conspiracy. Harry has instead joined a new organisation and returned to work, even if that work may initially involve standing outside Farquaad’s office and asking visitors whether they have an appointment.

The road back will not be easy. Harry must rebuild his reputation, regain his rank and demonstrate that the mistake in Los Angeles was an isolated lapse rather than evidence that he should never again be trusted with keys.

In Your Vaste wishes him well.

After all, a Thug who remembers to sell his headquarters may one day become a Don.

A Don who forgets is apparently already a Thug.

MAD DOGS, BAD ODDS: BUSINESS DYNASTY SUFFERS ANOTHER G-MAN SETBACK

By Vaste

The once-famous MadDog lineage has suffered another familiar conclusion, raising difficult questions about whether its descendants should continue pursuing lives of crime—or begin pursuing careers in which government employees are less likely to return fire.

The bloodline, as far as surviving records allow In Your Vaste to determine, includes MadDog, Jimbo, MayHaw and Astro. Each arrived carrying the reputation of the name before eventually encountering its most persistent hereditary rival: the G-man.

For generations, members of this lineage have been recognised as astute businessmen. They understood trade, identified opportunities and possessed the commercial judgement required to turn modest investments into respectable criminal enterprises.

Unfortunately, this financial intelligence has not always extended to shoot-outs.

The distinction is important. A talented businessman recognises when the potential return justifies the risk. A trigger-happy criminal sees a government agent, reaches for his weapon and conducts the shortest possible experiment into whether federal marksmanship has improved.

For members of the MadDog line, the answer has repeatedly been yes.

MadDog established the family name. Jimbo carried it forward. MayHaw and Astro followed in their footsteps, although “footsteps” may be an unhelpfully literal description when those steps repeatedly lead towards armed representatives of the government.

The names change, the ambitions evolve and the business plans become more sophisticated. The ending, however, appears to have been inherited intact.

At some point, each generation must ask whether tradition remains worth preserving. A family recipe may be passed from parent to child. So may a successful company or a treasured piece of jewellery. A tendency to start losing gunfights with federal agents should perhaps be allowed to expire without an heir.

This newspaper does not question the courage of the MadDog lineage. Courage has never been in short supply. If anything, considerably less courage at the appropriate moment might have preserved several members of the family.

Nor do we suggest that they lack criminal ability. Their repeated commercial successes demonstrate otherwise. The difficulty seems to arise when they abandon balance sheets for bullets and attempt to apply the principle of aggressive expansion directly to a G-man’s chest.

Their talents may simply be better suited elsewhere.

Banking offers risk, reward and opportunities to take other people’s money without personally entering a gunfight. Property development allows ambitious men to control territory while employing solicitors to handle the conflict. Even insurance would provide an opportunity to profit from catastrophe instead of repeatedly becoming one.

Should the lineage insist upon remaining in organised crime, a less dramatic adjustment may suffice: stop shooting quite so often.

Not every armed government employee requires an immediate demonstration of family tradition. Sometimes the wisest criminal decision is to lower the weapon, reconsider the odds and return to the profitable enterprise at which one is demonstrably competent.

A reputation for aggression can inspire fear, but only while its owner remains alive to benefit from it. After several generations, “MadDog” begins to sound less like a warning to enemies and more like a diagnosis that responsible relatives should have treated.

Future descendants might consider adopting a calmer name. SensibleDog, CautiousDog or Willing-To-Reconsider-A-New-CareerDog would lack the same menace, but their life expectancy could compensate for the loss of prestige.

The MadDog lineage has produced intelligent businessmen, ambitious criminals and men willing to test themselves against the government.

It has not produced much evidence that they should continue taking that test.

The lesson is therefore simple: keep the businesses, preserve the ambition and put down the gun.

If MadDog’s descendants cannot resist barking at the G-men, they should not remain surprised when the G-men bite back.

PERSONAL ADVERTISEMENT: QUEEN REQUIRED FOR COMPACT MONARCHY

The following matrimonial advertisement has been submitted by Lord Farquaad and is reproduced word for word. In Your Vaste accepts no responsibility for the accuracy of claims concerning vision, immaculate grooming or towering personal qualities.

“Lord Farquaad is Duloc’s premier visionary, an impeccably groomed, height-challenged absolute monarch whose ego towers vastly higher than his actual stature. Seeking a queen to complete his immaculate royal aesthetic, Farquaad requires a bride of genuine princess lineage who excels in standing quietly to his left, clapping gracefully at his grand speeches, and complementing his velvet wardrobe without ever eclipsing his royal profile. She must have zero ambition for actual governance, an appreciation for pristine municipal order, and a willingness to let desperate, disposable mercenaries handle any messy tower-rescuing business so her pristine hands—and his royal boots—stay entirely spotless.”

Interested princesses should submit their lineage, portrait and preferred tower height to Lord Farquaad. Applicants exceeding the sovereign in stature are respectfully reminded that high heels may be confiscated before the first meeting.

Mercenaries willing to undertake any necessary rescue should apply separately. Previous experience with dragons is preferred. Life insurance is not provided.