He only needed to kill people because he fucked up his opsec. Imagine if the person that was blackmailing him was an agent. If so, game over. Hence, he should n

He only needed to kill people because he fucked up his opsec. Imagine if the person that was blackmailing him was an agent. If so, game over. Hence, he should never have allowed anyone to get into such a position. That said, as far as damage control, he had no choice it seems. If the blackmailer really was going to turn over many innocent people to be prosecuted, well, it was probably the morally correct thing to do. (Assuming negotiations for a payment or other settlement didn't seem feasible.) It's not like he was out trying to murder random people or competitors. He was protecting many innocent users from potentially having their lives destroyed. I dunno about everyone else here, but that feels like it'd be a heavy burden to have to choose. Sorta like shooting an informant that's gonna leak info on a bunch of refugees. You know the informant might just be trying to get out of his own mess, or getting a safety package setup for his family or whatnot. But if you let him have his way, many people will be tortured. As sad as it is, what else can you do in such a case, even if it was your fault in the first place?