There is some kind of hilarious circularity to this. It's almost comparable to founding a publicly-traded company which asserts that its principal source of pro

There is some kind of hilarious circularity to this. It's almost comparable to founding a publicly-traded company which asserts that its principal source of profits will be shaking down doubters through the legal system, and then suing anyone who indeed expresses doubts for damages based on the expected loss in stock value if the company were to fail to bring or lose that very lawsuit. (Is this an appropriate model for certain "reputation economy" actions that exist in many human societies, like duels over perceived slights to one party's physical prowess?)