The trick here is to be paid twice for the same job.

#Abuser elimination as a service

The first question is as follows, what went wrong in your market that the NGO is buying the rights when they should either be being paid for the service of removing the person in question or accepting a contract to remove the person pro bono publico? The victim should be paying the organisation, not the other way round.

After that it's just a matter of selling the right to legally kill someone into a suitably sociopathic market. One person removed, two paychecks.

Depending on the culture, you can now add other options. Battle Royale for example, all the targets are rounded up, placed on an island and the survivor after a week gets to live (at least long enough for the post production interviews). Television rights provide the funding.

The Running Man, again a TV game with the winner getting a tropical island holiday (there are never any winners).

There are any number of ways of making money out of televising the hunt.

Let's consider some nice dystopian price schemes

#Free

One could call this pro-bono, but it's more Jerry Springer, you could go as far as paying an appearance fee in this case. Nobody is interested in seeing some random person fighting to the death in an arena, they need a story, a reason to be involved. The victim has to go on screen and tell the world what happened and why they're using this option.

#Freemium

There's a cost to being anonymous, a cost to hiring an actor to tell the story rather than having to do it in person. You can pay for anything on the scale from here to:

#Executive premium

There's only one paycheck for this one and that's from the victim. There was an abuser yesterday, today there isn't. No word, no sign, no body, just gone.

The trick here is to be paid twice for the same job.

Abuser elimination as a service

The first question is as follows, what went wrong in your market that the NGO is buying the rights when they should either be being paid for the service of removing the person in question or accepting a contract to remove the person pro bono publico? The victim should be paying the organisation, not the other way round.

After that it's just a matter of selling the right to legally kill someone into a suitably sociopathic market. One person removed, two paychecks.

Depending on the culture, you can now add other options. Battle Royale for example, all the targets are rounded up, placed on an island and the survivor after a week gets to live (at least long enough for the post production interviews). Television rights provide the funding.

The Running Man, again a TV game with the winner getting a tropical island holiday (there are never any winners).

There are any number of ways of making money out of televising the hunt.

Let's consider some nice dystopian price schemes

Free

One could call this pro-bono, but it's more Jerry Springer, you could go as far as paying an appearance fee in this case. Nobody is interested in seeing some random person fighting to the death in an arena, they need a story, a reason to be involved. The victim has to go on screen and tell the world what happened and why they're using this option.

Freemium

There's a cost to being anonymous, a cost to hiring an actor to tell the story rather than having to do it in person. You can pay for anything on the scale from here to:

Executive premium

There's only one paycheck for this one and that's from the victim. There was an abuser yesterday, today there isn't. No word, no sign, no body, just gone.

The trick here is to be paid twice for the same job.

#Abuser elimination as a service

The first question is as follows, what went wrong in your market that the NGO is buying the rights when they should either be being paid for the service of removing the person in question or accepting a contract to remove the person pro bono publico? The victim should be paying the organisation, not the other way round.

After that it's just a matter of selling the right to legally kill someone into a suitably sociopathic market. One person removed, two paychecks.

Depending on the culture, you can now add other options. Battle Royale for example, all the targets are rounded up, placed on an island and the survivor after a week gets to live (at least long enough for the post production interviews). Television rights provide the funding.

The Running Man, again a TV game with the winner getting a tropical island holiday (there are never any winners).

There are any number of ways of making money out of televising the hunt.

Let's consider some nice dystopian price schemes

#Free

One could call this pro-bono, but it's more Jerry Springer. Nobody is interested in seeing some random person fighting to the death in an arena, they need a story, a reason to be involved. The victim has to go on screen and tell the world what happened and why they're using this option.

#Freemium

There's a cost to being anonymous, a cost to hiring an actor to tell the story rather than having to do it in person. You can pay for anything on the scale from here to:

#Executive premium

There's only one paycheck for this one and that's from the victim. There was an abuser yesterday, today there isn't. No word, no sign, no body, just gone.

The trick here is to be paid twice for the same job.

#Abuser elimination as a service

The first question is as follows, what went wrong in your market that the NGO is buying the rights when they should either be being paid for the service of removing the person in question or accepting a contract to remove the person pro bono publico? The victim should be paying the organisation, not the other way round.

After that it's just a matter of selling the right to legally kill someone into a suitably sociopathic market. One person removed, two paychecks.

Depending on the culture, you can now add other options. Battle Royale for example, all the targets are rounded up, placed on an island and the survivor after a week gets to live (at least long enough for the post production interviews). Television rights provide the funding.

The Running Man, again a TV game with the winner getting a tropical island holiday (there are never any winners).

There are any number of ways of making money out of televising the hunt.

Let's consider some nice dystopian price schemes

#Free

One could call this pro-bono, but it's more Jerry Springer, you could go as far as paying an appearance fee in this case. Nobody is interested in seeing some random person fighting to the death in an arena, they need a story, a reason to be involved. The victim has to go on screen and tell the world what happened and why they're using this option.

#Freemium

There's a cost to being anonymous, a cost to hiring an actor to tell the story rather than having to do it in person. You can pay for anything on the scale from here to:

#Executive premium

There's only one paycheck for this one and that's from the victim. There was an abuser yesterday, today there isn't. No word, no sign, no body, just gone.

The trick here is to be paid twice for the same job.

#Abuser elimination as a service

The first question is as follows, what went wrong in your market that the NGO is buying the rights when they should either be being paid for the service of removing the person in question or accepting a contract to remove the person pro bono publico? The victim should be paying the organisation, not the other way round.

After that it's just a matter of selling the right to legally kill someone into a suitably sociopathic market. One person removed, two paychecks.

Depending on the culture, you can now add other options. Battle Royale for example, all the targets are rounded up, placed on an island and the survivor after a week gets to live (at least long enough for the post production interviews). Television rights provide the funding.

The Running Man, again a TV game with the winner getting a tropical island holiday (there are never any winners).

There are any number of ways of making money out of televising the hunt.

The trick here is to be paid twice for the same job.

#Abuser elimination as a service

The first question is as follows, what went wrong in your market that the NGO is buying the rights when they should either be being paid for the service of removing the person in question or accepting a contract to remove the person pro bono publico? The victim should be paying the organisation, not the other way round.

After that it's just a matter of selling the right to legally kill someone into a suitably sociopathic market. One person removed, two paychecks.

Depending on the culture, you can now add other options. Battle Royale for example, all the targets are rounded up, placed on an island and the survivor after a week gets to live (at least long enough for the post production interviews). Television rights provide the funding.

The Running Man, again a TV game with the winner getting a tropical island holiday (there are never any winners).

There are any number of ways of making money out of televising the hunt.

Let's consider some nice dystopian price schemes

#Free

One could call this pro-bono, but it's more Jerry Springer. Nobody is interested in seeing some random person fighting to the death in an arena, they need a story, a reason to be involved. The victim has to go on screen and tell the world what happened and why they're using this option.

#Freemium

There's a cost to being anonymous, a cost to hiring an actor to tell the story rather than having to do it in person. You can pay for anything on the scale from here to:

#Executive premium

There's only one paycheck for this one and that's from the victim. There was an abuser yesterday, today there isn't. No word, no sign, no body, just gone.