I suppose it's possible to read it as declaring an absolute and exhaustive definition of "harm" to include "murder" and absolutely nothing else. But that feels

I suppose it's possible to read it as declaring an absolute and exhaustive definition of "harm" to include "murder" and absolutely nothing else. But that feels like A) a reach and B) a deliberately uncharitable one at that. The more charitable and more likely reading is poking fun at a CEO's hatred of people who bet against the CEO's company. Perhaps try re-reading that way?