Eagle Squad: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|work|[[File:Eagle Squad.png|450px|thumb|center|Licence to [[Die in a ditch|die... ''in a ditch'']].]] | {{a|work|[[File:Eagle Squad.png|450px|thumb|center|Licence to [[Die in a ditch|die... ''in a ditch'']].]]}}The brave men and women of the [[General Counsel|GCHQ]], here to save the world. | ||
}}The brave men and women of the GCHQ, here to save the world. | |||
Legal eagles have unique empowerment from the highest reaches of the great [[modernist]] machine. | |||
Now, James Bond famously had a [[licence to kill]], but — let’s face facts — there is only so much you can do with that. Once you have bumped off Scaramanga that’s really that. | |||
[[Eagle Squad]]’s power is more of a torture of the living. Whereas others in the legal documentation flow — notably, the poor benighted [[negotiator]]s who are, really, the brave footsoldiers of legal practice, however hotly the [[eaglery]] denies it — have meaningful commercial constraints on the perversity they can bring to their task: there are measurements of their performance, and abstrusity doesn’t count: their [[metric]]s, [[service level agreement]]s, [[KPI]]s — the whole ornate ''smörgåsbord'' of [[modernist]] fripperies by which their overlords can impel them to carry on, propelling them to find solutions, make accommodations, engineer compromises and basically box on — the Eagle Squad member has no such constraint. | |||
She can resist a [[Sovereign immunity|sovereign immunity waiver]] from an industrial corporate having no particular association with any organ of state indefinitely, on principle, notwithstanding the fatuity of the request — indeed, ''because'' of the fatuity of the request! — with no second-guessing or cajoling from the cheap-seats. | |||
This is ineffable legal stuff; the risks of compromise passeth all [[muggle]] comprehending, and that is that. Eagle Squad has not so much a licence to ''kill'' as a ''licence to [[die in a ditch]]''. | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Modernism]] | |||
*[[Dashboard]] | |||
*[[Ditch tolerance]] | |||
Revision as of 16:06, 17 May 2022
|
Office anthropology™
|
The brave men and women of the GCHQ, here to save the world.
Legal eagles have unique empowerment from the highest reaches of the great modernist machine.
Now, James Bond famously had a licence to kill, but — let’s face facts — there is only so much you can do with that. Once you have bumped off Scaramanga that’s really that.
Eagle Squad’s power is more of a torture of the living. Whereas others in the legal documentation flow — notably, the poor benighted negotiators who are, really, the brave footsoldiers of legal practice, however hotly the eaglery denies it — have meaningful commercial constraints on the perversity they can bring to their task: there are measurements of their performance, and abstrusity doesn’t count: their metrics, service level agreements, KPIs — the whole ornate smörgåsbord of modernist fripperies by which their overlords can impel them to carry on, propelling them to find solutions, make accommodations, engineer compromises and basically box on — the Eagle Squad member has no such constraint.
She can resist a sovereign immunity waiver from an industrial corporate having no particular association with any organ of state indefinitely, on principle, notwithstanding the fatuity of the request — indeed, because of the fatuity of the request! — with no second-guessing or cajoling from the cheap-seats.
This is ineffable legal stuff; the risks of compromise passeth all muggle comprehending, and that is that. Eagle Squad has not so much a licence to kill as a licence to die in a ditch.