Okay so today I was thinking about some things (inspired by a large bribery scandal in san diego involving strip clubs, the city council and no-touch rules). So it got me to thinking about the computer game civilization in which when you reach republic or democracy units can't be bribed. In a perfect world of course people couldn't be bribed, but lets say in a less than perfect world which is more important: prosecuting the briber or the bribed? After all the briber of course would most likely be someone of dubious background and would be treated as such, whereas the bribed is most often somebody ascribed diginity, honour and trust. So which is the greater crime? I think most would agree that accepting a bribe is much greater than presenting a bribe. However if one were to think about evolution for a moment its hypothetically possible that by also eliminating the briber than an even smarter criminal would replace him. This whole concept could be applied to a whole slew of non-violent crimes, everything from prostitution to hacking. I'm trying to think of the greater picture here, about fixing the system that is broken by allowing such coruption to exist. It seems that in so many of these casses it is simply inventive individuals getting around whatever safeguards are in place and taking advantage of a weakness that should not exist to begin with.