Juge Liang, tell me

Great teacher, I have been fortune-telling on tortoise shells and sticks,
but I have not understood anything from the fortune-telling,
and if, for example,
Hypothetically, such a situation were:
- Big Boss, they respectfully ask,
Let us keep our assets and the label of power,
And we will plunder some other small town to poverty,
And we have plenty of them.

And we will buy the entire Formula One and
a hundred football clubs and yachts with the profit,
And we will sell them back to you for one dollar.
Switzerland will prosper on anonymous deposits
And we will raise the bitcoin rate if you want,
or drop it in an instant if you want.
But if we lose, then we will lose everything,
But then you will lose too.

Venerable Kong Ming, what do you think,
Are there such fools as to succumb to such persuasion?
yes,
everything placed in the context of a problem is a problem,
and everything placed in my pocket is mine.
Avoiding the context of "beneficiaries" in rhetoric, from the very beginning,
everything is placed in the context of "state interest".
In the name of the people, of course.
Thus, the stated context is deliberately set incorrectly.
and this is a screen with a dragon painted on it.
And that means?

Think for yourself already!
You don't bargain from a weak position, you have to give up everything for power.
War is always just a pretext, and the weakest may be the one who seems stronger,
Since the one who has lost power is no longer a player at all.

In general, it is logical to help the weak side, in this case,
They are already doing it. The context of beneficiaries is not heard anywhere, and this is already help.
After all, you remember, there are always more than two parties.

And we? Commoners?
You are a slightly learned person and therefore should know:
There has never been and is no talk of commoners in such matters.
Neo-feudalism is communism, almost,
and even more, but not for everyone.

Daoists, let us raise ritual candles to the sky with the inscription "let thunder strike them all!"
The venerable Juge Liang would not approve of such impulsiveness.
He has already left.