What is Crusader's approach to running things, compared with ArcCorp, Hurston and microTech?
TL;DRCrusader is a caring company that is too nice to be a government, struggling with security as tourism attracted outlaws and facing a dilemma over its charitable donations.
The nice guys who are probably too nice. Yeah, Crusader. And also, we're trying to not have it be ultra, ultra pessimistic. I mean, I'm pessimistic by nature, so that's just going to happen. But with Crusader, we actually wanted them to be genuinely like, we care about our workers and want to make a good environment for them, and a safe place and a place for their families, a place that they're proud to work at, and know that their higher-ups really take care of them. But the double-edged sword to that is, are they able to make the hard calls, to make decisions that aren't nice? And so that's where their willingness to empathize is almost becoming a detriment to them, because with their outlaws, they're like, well, they're clearly desperate and they're having problems and stuff like that. So it's staying their hand a little bit as far as being able to really clamp down on them from a security standpoint, which, unfortunately, a lot of these outlaws are going to take advantage of and capitalize on. So that was sort of the fun twist.
Yeah, that they wanted all this tourism to come, because, building the Starliner and stuff like that, they were trying to attract people. And then with those tourists came people looking to prey off those tourists. And then the question is, is their security up to snuff? And they're having a hard time dealing with this. And it's just that thing that we're seeing: running a company is not the same thing as running a government. They're not equatable. And that's what Crusader is learning in real time and trying to get on top of.
Yeah. And one of the core principles of Crusader has always been to donate a percentage of their profits to nonprofit organizations. So they have all this money that they've also dedicated to other causes, which is now becoming something for them to consider. Do you stop doing that to increase security? Do you give up one of your core principles as a way to protect yourself? But if you don't protect yourself, does the entire thing just go away, and then you have no money to give away? So they're kind of stuck in this Catch-22 to a certain degree.