Seriously, I mean not only did he hate slavery yet owned slaves, which is easily one of his most famous hypocrisy’s, but he was also anti-central banks yet he was a shareholder in the first chartered bank in the nations history.
It’s insane how he could believe one thing in principle but then do a completely separate thing in practice.
Often in hypothetical fights between characters who are much weaker and characters who are much stronger, people will say that the weaker character will win if they have sufficient hax abilities. For instance in a fight between Paul Atreides vs Superman someone might say that Paul could win via the voice(I’ve never heard or read this being said anywhere, but it’s an example).
Now Paul is far far weaker than Superman, but because he has a hax ability that Superman can’t counter(lets say for the sake of this question that Superman can’t counter it with hax or proven resistance or something akin to that), some might say he would win.
So my question is, what is the extent by which a character who is significantly weaker than the character they are fighting can win that fight via hax?