Markup View

Author: troublegum

Apr 6th 2012 at 12:13:29 AM

^ If they don't keep the money, what do they do with it? If they give it away, we're back to JustLikeRobinHood, especially if you want to make this about making the character of the thief sympathetic. The unsympathetic nature of the victim is what makes up for the unsympathetic nature of the act of theft.

^^ That was also the general impression I came away with; and I feel there is an inherent element of rich = acceptable target. As you say, music / video game piracy is frequently justified with the stock phrase of "they're good for it." Fraud and theft against banks, tax evasion, tax fraud, shoplifting from large supermarket chains, skimming money from a mobster's protection fund or simply a multi-millionaire not because he's bad or corrupt, but because he's a multi-millionaire.

I'd say that the underlying moral perspective here is that of the 'Victimless Crime.'

-> They're good for it. He won't miss a few hundred thousand. They're insured.

That would be at the rich = acceptable end of the trope. At the other end of the trope:

-> It's not as if they can go to the police and say "Excuse me, we've had all our drugs and money stolen, it it?"

For those targets who're okay to steal from, because they're corrupt or criminal themselves.

Either way, simply being able to 'afford the losses' isn't the same as being unsympathetic or outright unpleasant. It moves the trope away from: the victim must be evil or a jerk and more towards, the audience must perceive the act of theft as having minimal consequence for the victim.