To state my question simply, how do you even begin to take apart an organized crime syndicate when that syndicate is intimately intertwined with the government, to the point the syndicate's leader has managed to become the ruling monarch? For context, I'm writing a superhero/fantasy story in a post-apocalyptic world inspired by Renaissance Italy. The coastal city-state of Izar is one of the few bits of civilization still standing, though it's teetering on the brink of collapse even three years afterward. That's in large part due to its organized crime element. At the end of my first novel, my protagonist Zeno Citrelli/the Silver Shrike was forced to choose between letting a reformist candidate--who secretly led a populist fanatical movement that had no problem killing innocents--be elected the city's next monarch, or backing his sister Galatea--who chaired an alliance of crime families called the Committee--instead. Deciding the devil he knew was better than one wildly unpredictable, Zeno reluctantly backs his sister and exposes the reformer's plans for a coup if he lost the election. Two years later, that choice is coming back to bite him. Galatea has the entire city guard in her pocket; plenty of them don't like being on the take, but it's better than ending up dead. She's used the guard to take over every protection racket in the city, while also forcing Izar's criminals to give her a slice of the profits from their other rackets. The Crown Prosecutor's Office and Izar's judges are likewise bought and paid for. As the Silver Shrike, Zeno's continued his vigilante war against the Committee and his sister, but he can't break her rackets fast enough to make a dent. Forcing her off the throne and breaking her hold over the guard seems like his only option. Killing Galatea is the obvious solution, but: 1) Zeno only kills as an absolute last resort 2) on some level, he still loves his sister 3) killing her would create a power vacuum others would rush to fill, resulting in violence that could tip Izar toward collapse. A 3/4 vote by the City Council can remove the monarch, but most of its members are on Galatea's payroll. The rest are too scared to openly oppose her like that. Something big has to happen to get the votes for removal. My sequel's main plot would follow a series of murders targeting Galatea's critics, many of whom are members of the nobility. The murderer would eventually be revealed to be Galatea's bodyguard and lover, who acted without her knowledge or approval. To protect him from execution, she would: 1) Fire the case's lead investigator 2) Pardon her bodyguard 3) Stage a false flag attack on one of her critics--using some imprisoned/committed supervillain types--while the bodyguard is in custody to make it look like someone else is behind the killings. Zeno foils this attack, and Galatea's involvement is revealed. These flagrant abuses of power would lead to the vote for her removal. Problem is, while this feels like a big enough scandal to be the "straw that breaks the camel's back", I'm doubtful it's enough to do Galatea in on its own. It feels like I need more "straw" to weaken her hold over the city before all this happens, but I'm struggling to figure out what that might be. Anybody have ideas to make breaking Galatea's hold on Izar feel more gradual and realistic?
This all sounds quite fascinating; particularly so because I feel like I have a similar sort of situation in my own story in terms of the corruption plaguing one city,though the faction calling the shots isn't quite so autonomous as you describe in your own novel. I think They might not openly support your hero Zeno, but they might give tacit support or purposefully look the other way/elect not to report back to Galatea if they can get away with it. It's one of those situations where nobody is willing to make the first move. Even when a figure like Zeno steps up, they will bide their time, wait to see what is happening. whether anybody else will commit. Other political players who publicly support Galatea, but will turn at the first scent of blood in the water. That is, the key to Zeno's success is to marshal enough tacit support from the other players in Izar that is enough to turn the tide, all without Galatea's knowledge (that of course, leaves plenty of opportunity for their plot to be exposed). A similar strategy was used in a book, The Traitor Baru Cormorant, I read recently in which the author explains the concept very well: he calls it 'The Traitor's Qualm'. In that novel, it is presented more as a dilemma that has to be overcome for a rebellion to succeed against an empire, but I think the same praxis applies here.
The story sounds great. Have you tried looking for real world examples? What I mean is real world examples of the deconstruction of a corrupt state. That may be difficult as I don't think there is a city on earth without corruption. New York had a lot of success with the racketeering laws. While that may not be dramatic you could find stand-ins to simplify and add violence to ( if it needs to be added, thinking about Falcone and the Cosa Nostra) I think the difficulty with my own suggestion is that these things are more likely resolved with the building up of democratic institutions. Do you have an alternative power structure in opposition? I am thinking good Harvey Dent in Batman. Who are the people who would experience this final scandal as being too far? Who would take up the work of dismantling her enterprise? Have they been shown in your story? Do you have a functioning judiciary beyond the city guards? You say she would fire the lead investigator? Is there a separate body that prosecutes in your story? Does that investigator have the backing of the FBI/ Judges/Council of Justice and Executions? You say he chose not to back the reformist candidate with the sideline in Fanatical Terrorism, what happened to that characters power structure? Did it have moderate elements? This was a long reply but I hope it gave some jump off points.
Seconded that you try to find real-world examples...but instead of looking for examples about cities, I'd read about strategies of the French Resistance during World War 2 and shrink down those strategies to a city scale. It would be easier to use the element of surprise, for one, but also, I think it would draw the reader in and get them more invested because they could put themselves in the shoes of the "ordinary" citizens who involved in overthrowing the city government. My mom's uncle was an American soldier in WW2 who worked with a seemingly ordinary farming family who was part of the Resistance. Lots of great stories to be had there.
I've looked into real world examples, but the constant with almost all of them is that federal (or in a unitary state, national) law enforcement and prosecutors tend to spearhead the successful efforts at busting this sort of widespread corruption. Since it's a city-state, the local and national governments are the same, and Galatea has control over it from top to bottom. Shrike has some allies, a detective in the guard and I'm toying with a minor prosecutor willing to bring a case against Gal's bodyguard for his own personal reasons, but they have little clout. Calling them an alternative power structure would probably be a misnomer. As for who this final scandal is too far for, that would be the City Council. It would provide the push needed to have enough votes for Galatea's removal. The Council was mentioned in the first novel, but it's going to come more into view with this plot. No, there's no judicial system beyond the city guard, the attached Crown Prosecutor's Office, and the courts that have already been corrupted. The lead investigator would be the detective in the guard I mentioned earlier. Since Galatea has no clue who was actually behind the killings until near the climax, she had no reason to pressure the investigation. That group, the Lost Souls, got dismantled by the city guard and Shrike in book one's climax. Some splinters remain, but they're radical and too weak to do anything noteworthy. The reformist's electoral base remains, and their reps on the City Council are the ones who aren't paid off but are too afraid to make major moves. It might be helpful to detail how the Council works. Izar has six districts, and each sends two reps to the Council. So twelve in total, and nine needed to remove a monarch. The reps for the lower class areas, the East Bank and Waterfront, hate Gal and would back removal, but they're afraid and know the votes aren't there yet. The middle class districts, North and South Scogliera and Isola Mercante, are heavily populated with skilled laborers who are members of guilds. Like many labor unions and the mafia in real life, the Committee families wield hefty influence with the guilds, so their reps strongly support Gal. But if Galatea's actions started undermining the guilds' profits... The Old City is home to most of the nobles with urban property, and it's split. Since Galatea and most of the big figures in organized crime are from the merchant class, there's some opposition based on pure snobbery. But some of the noble houses have fallen on hard times since feudalism started dying out in Izar, so dirty money from Gal and the Committee is attractive. One of their reps openly supports removal, while the other doesn't. That gives a total of 5 in favor of removal, 7 against. Whatever happens in this story, it needs to move four reps to the pro-removal side. I think the final scandal could move one or two, but it doesn't seem like it would be realistic to swing things further.
Your MC could also target others that Galatea relies on for her business to operate smoothly. For example, the shipping cartels with an interest in Izar will have a reasonable amount of influence with her, and perhaps might even be more powerful than her, which means they might be able to force matters on behalf of the protagonist if convinced/manipulated to do so. I am promptly reminded of the finale of the TV show Banshee in which the corrupt mayor is finally thwarted when Spoiler the protagonists interrupt his drug deal with the Colombian cartels by blowing up the whole stash. The rather pissed-off cartel then promptly send their own hit squad to assassinate him . Of course, you're probably not looking for something as radical as that, but it's just anoter idea of the sort of thing you can do.
It's a good suggestion, and I've considered a more open coup or popular uprising, but it runs into characterization problems. Izar is very close to a societal collapse--its farms and fishermen are barely bringing in enough food, most of its foreign trade partners no longer exist and the new ones are tiny, much of the poorer districts are still in ruins--so Shrike has been very wary of big or violent moves that could further destabilize the city. That's part of why he opposed the reformer and his movement; they wanted war in the streets against the Committee and didn't care about collateral damage or other consequences. Backing a coup or revolt here would be pretty hypocritical.
You should check out China's history, if you haven't already. So many examples of organized crime ascending to the level of statehood... and then crashing and burning, over and over again. We're watching yet another one as it makes its precarious ascent, right now. You're bound to find inspiration very quickly from this source!
The Dictator’s Handbook may be an interesting way to look at this situation. It models essentially every government as a corrupt mafia state, with different levels of severity. A 3rd world dictator would fund his backers using money from the country’s natural resources, and a democratic leader funds her backers with corn subsidies. A fun synopsis of the concepts in that book: Anyway, to undo such a state, the options are mostly: Increase the nation’s economic status so that it no longer makes economic sense to be a kleptocracy; democracies are wealthier, Bill Gates is richer than most dictators Destroy the resources that fuel the machine. Burn the oil fields. Collapse the spice mines. The existing order will no longer be able to sustain itself as there is no longer anything to steal. Viva la resistance! Destroy the old order with a new glorious revolution, preferably something with a really sticky ideology (religious, class warfare, etc). The King is dead, long live the King. All are really hard of course, and without improving the economy, they’ll probably just end up with a nicer dictator.
Ah, I remember that video. The points are all good, though like I said earlier anything too destabilizing runs into characterization issues. And considering his sister was elected legally, Zeno is very focused on removing her from power through legal channels.
Something similar though a little different: Izar's guilds are mostly subservient to Galatea, but they've got enough influence they can afford to throw their weight around on key issues. Some of the rackets of the Committee families and other criminal enterprises might interfere with guild business. For example, there's an ongoing refugee crisis thanks to the effects of the apocalypse. Izar's previous Doge sealed off the city to new immigrants, but the refugees are still camped outside, and some of the Committee families have taken to smuggling them into the city if they sell themselves into slavery. An influx of skilled slave labor, undercutting guild prices for various jobs, might be enough to wedge away a City Councilor or two. But do the losses from competing with slaves outweigh the lucrative contracts Galatea's government is offering? Hmmm.
When crime gets to that level, it pretty much becomes feudalism, doesn't it? I've only a passing knowledge of the time, but you might look into the Medicis and Borgias and such during the period when Italy was made up of a bunch of competing city-states.
Legal process is tricky. The laws are written by those in power. In a country where the nobles are in power, the law enshrines a king as the absolute monarch. There is usually no constitutional process to remove him. In countries where the people hold the power, there are laws that actually hold power accountable. Looks like the nation in your book(s) does have a few restrictions on the king, so it is likely a situation where the people and nobles share power. A constitutional monarchy. In these, kings are often removed because they fail to satisfy those who hold the power. King George III was too crazy to run his country, so those in power ensured a transition: the Regency. In that case, his son was a suitable candidate, so got to wear the golden hat. But if he had not been, he too would have been sidelined. If the balance is sufficiently uneven, whole dynasties will be overthrown. Sometimes, a country will outgrow its kings. Sometimes, kings will not fit into their nation's customs. To be removed, there has to be an imbalance here -- the king has to be operating outside the country's norms. Otherwise if you get rid of them: the King is dead, long live the King. So it may be that your characters have faith that their country is better than their current king. In this case, getting rid of the king will do. He/she will be replaced by someone in line with the norms. This can be done through any number of methods, so long as the people who hold the power don't want that person on the throne. Sure maybe he's bribing the guard, but maybe the guard don't need bribes. Maybe the country can actually run without corruption. But if it can't run without corruption, your characters'd best focus on changing their country. Kings are just the people at the top. We humans usually get the leaders that we deserve.
All well and good, but we're talking about a constitutional, elective monarchy here. There's a clear legal process for removing the monarch; the trick is countering her illicit influence and willingness to employ coercion or violence to get the votes needed for removal. Which is the issue I'm having. There are certainly issues--irritating the guilds and nobility with some of her rackets, the murders and attempted coverup, etc.--that could push some city councilors to vote her out. But are those enough to logically outweigh the benefits she's offering and the risks of openly opposing her? I don't know.
It would depend on the circumstances and the economy. A lot of third world countries have the legal system of a republic, but in actuality are ruled by a single dictator who always wins the elections with a 90% vote, and would have anyone who tried to have him or her impeached executed. And a lot of countries wouldn't put up with bribery, for a lot of reasons. Most American cops probably wouldn't accept bribes, even if they knew for certain that they wouldn't be caught. It's not just about the law, it's about culture and economy. There are countries where police are bribed regularly, and it's basically how they're paid. They probably have a net income far less than American cops in dollar value. When the guard in your books accept a bribe, do they feel guilty about it? Do the individual guards themselves receive much of that money, or do their captains get most of it at the end of the day? Do they even know that they're being bribed, or is that just kept to the officers, and they follow orders. Things like that can have a big effect on how systemic this corruption is. If the corruption truly is only at the top, then a legal process should be able to remove it. The noblemen accepting bribes have motives other than money. They also don't want to be purged by a more brutal ruler, and they may be concerned that even though they're being paid, their country is falling apart around them, preventing them from actually enjoying the wealth. If the nobles were nobles before this king came along, then they do not rely on that king for their power. Their continued support of her will depend on whether it is still within their interest. If the king turns out to be a crazy loose cannon, they will replace her with someone who isn't. And depending on the economic and cultural circumstances of the country, that new person either will be, or won't be, another monster. Maybe the new king won't have people killed, and instead will pay bribes in corn subsidies, for example. Every system, particularly ones with an established noble class, have methods of distributing wealth to that class.
Depends on the individual. Many don't, considering they're poorly paid and overworked. Others only take it because of the not so subtle threat of violence. They're all paid off individually. I think I touched on it earlier, but if not, the entire force is on the take; everyone who refused the bribes suffered "accidents" or was forced out for a variety of reasons. The corruption is complete, but it wasn't always so high. Before Gal was elected Doge, the Committee only bribed government officials on an as needed basis. Don't patrol this dock tonight, don't look in that crate, don't punish that enforcer, that sort of thing. She's built a form of organized crime nobody in Izar has dealt with before. That's partly because the sort of unified syndicates that made up the Committee are pretty young; they've only been active 40-ish years, max. Noticeable levels of corruption in the ICG and the rest of the judicial system is new too; around 25 years, back when the Committee first coalesced. Izari culture at large still considers this sort of corruption abnormal and immoral, and the time before it is remembered fondly. It's just that direct control under the current ruler, collaboration under the last one, and apathy under the one before that let the situation deteriorate. The nobility aren't the decisive element in Izar's politics these days. Thanks to the move away from feudalism, their military power is almost nonexistent. Some houses still wield considerable wealth, but many only have the legacy of their ancestors. As a whole, the class's influence is declining. It's already less than that of the merchant/skilled worker middle class. They're not in any position to be ousting Galatea. Certainly not alone. Now, to be clear, I'm not looking to clean out Gal's network in this story. Just pry her away from de jure power. Permanently breaking the Committee is a matter for book three.
Sounds like their hold on power is fairly weak then. Guards can be bribed, yes, but if their loyalty is really just bought and paid for, then those tides could easily turn. Someone else could pay the bribes of course, but most guards would only be willing to do so much for cash. Even if their lives are threatened when not taking the bribes, that isn't really enforceable in a pinch. Suppose that the council suddenly voted the king out of office. The king goes to the guards and says "Hey, I bribed you, depose the council for me." The officers, who are getting paid the big bucks, would probably go along with that. But would the normal soldiers really do it? They can't exactly all suffer accidents in the course of one afternoon. It's hard to say, but they probably would not follow orders like that en mass. At best, only small detachments would do it. Others would either stand by or skirmishing would break out. It would be a mess. Now, suppose the person who pays the bribes is successfully ousted then thrown in prison. They can't really project their power from prison. Maybe their trusted lieutenants will pay the bribes for them and engineer a prison break. Maybe they won't. Maybe those trusted lieutenants with fight amongst each other to decide who gets to be the Don. That would be most likely. Their leader would have fallen. Leaders are usually pretty replaceable. So the key then is voting the leader out, and controlling the situation on the ground when that happens, to prevent soldiers from doing anything rash. On the surface, this is politics. People lose in politics, even the rich and powerful, for political reasons. That's pretty straightfoward. The "if I vote to depose the leader, I might get killed by the mob" part is the trickiest aspect here. Perhaps it comes down to whether the councilors are more afraid of the leader staying in power, or of getting killed for their vote. If their leader is absolutely unhinged, then it becomes less of a risk to vote them out and risk retaliation than let them remain in power, and suffer consequences anyway. If you want the good guys to win here, then you'll need to align those incentives correctly. Or maybe the vigilante stuff can contribute to the solution too. Corrupt politicians might be incentivized to vote out their corrupt overlords if continuing the corruption will see them a visit from The Batman after all.
I ought to note that the Committee has a very robust network of enforcers, strong enough to give the ICG trouble if it came to a head to head clash. That's part of why the last Doge chose to collaborate and turn a blind eye to their operations. Far less bloody, far more profitable. So yeah, if enough guards chose to buck the bribes, they wouldn't be dealt with in one afternoon, but the Committee is in a good position to threaten their families. True, projecting power from prison is tough, though from my research a few irl bosses have managed to do it. But as far as this series goes, I'm not planning on keeping her imprisoned for long. One of the other plot lines has some nasty natural disasters triggered in the city, finally pushing it over the edge and causing damage that lets Gal escape. That would lead in to book three, sort of a "No Man's Land"-like plot that would see the various crime families trying to take advantage of the chaos to turn their areas of operation into actual feudal territories. Galatea's far from unhinged, but I'm thinking that final scandal is a good way to make some of the councilors wonder. Having the killer gradually escalate from targeting her most vocal critics to some prominent people who are barely even complaining, and then Galatea taking extreme measures to protect for him, could give the impression she was behind the whole thing even though she's objectively innocent. After all, politics is so often about impressions.
The natural disaster could serve as an interesting catalyst that leads to removal. If the current leader is wholly incapable of dealing with the crises, those in power can often decide that keeping that leader is the more dangerous option. All in all, this leader will go down because of their weaknesses. We see from human history that dictators who have this kind of control are almost never removed peacefully. Usually it’s done through external intervention, viva la resistance, assassination, or death by drunkenness (emperors like to party, sometimes too much). Sometimes dictators overstep their bounds and get removed for violating norms. This would be the area in which this leader is removed peacefully, like King George III getting a regent. Though sometimes they overstep their bounds and win — Sulla ascended to the dictatorship in the Roman Republic, purged his enemies, then retired in comfort. Augustus did that, but without the retiring part. It’s tricky, because leaders usually aren’t stupid. They know how to keep power. Macbeth could have kept the power, if he had wielded it well, even though he got it through illegitimate means. But he didn’t weild it well, and lost the power game. Looks like your antagonist knows who to bribe. They might push their bounds, but they’ll need to be pretty tone deaf to push them too far. Spoiler: Season/Book 1, Game of Thrones To rave a little bit about Eddard Stark’s legal challenge to Joffrey Baratheon, he didn’t play this well. Littlefinger told him that the guard had been bribed to side with him, so Eddard made the mistake of challenging the King’s authority in a room lined with guards who he didn’t have any proof were on his side. The guard turned on him and killed his men, taking him prisoner. This is an example of two things. One, bribes are weak. Sometimes you can pay off the sell sword, only to be stabbed from behind because someone payed the sell sword more than you did. It also says how a challenger must control the situation. If the guards in that room had been on Eddard’s side, he would have won. The guards outside that room didn’t matter. What matters is who sits on the iron throne, and wields power. People usually follow orders. Those orders come from the person in power, and the person in power gets there by securing control of it.
The disasters themselves are meant to happen after she's been removed, but the lead up to them is still enough of a crisis that it could be a good contributing factor. With Ned, it's worth pointing out that his honorable nature left him somewhat out of his depth when it came to playing courtly politics. A critical flaw. Galatea's affection for her bodyguard, and willingness to go to great lengths to protect him, could fill a similar role. She's a canny operator, but having a blind spot when it comes to him makes sense.
Based on this thread and ongoing brainstorming, the current roadmap for Galatea's downfall looks like this: 1). Her expansion of protection rackets to the Old City angers much of the nobility, who hadn't been extorted before. 2). A lone, powered bandit is harrying Izar's over land trade routes, slaughtering entire caravans but stealing nothing. The ICG consistently fails to stop the raiding, irritating the Merchants' Guild. 3). One of Galatea's critics, the heir of a prominent noble family, ends up dead the same night he delivered a blistering verbal attack to her face at a state function. Nobody voices the belief publicly, but it's widely accepted she ordered the killing. 4). One of the guards who is only on the take due to fear and blackmail gets assigned to investigate the murder. Zeno/Silver Shrike also takes an interest, since it provides a possible route to take his sister down. 5). The smuggling of refugees into Izar to sell as slaves ends up hurting the profits for the Stonemasons and Carpenters Guilds. One of the middle class Councilors moves toward removal, bringing the total votes to six. 6). The killings continue, mostly targeting noble critics but expanding to a reporter with one of the city's newspapers. Shrike and the lead investigator start collaborating. 7). Between Galatea using the ICG to squeeze a larger cut out of their rackets and the Silver Shrike hitting them more and more, the city's various crime families start getting restive. 8). Galatea's bodyguard is caught red-handed murdering the Guildmaster of the Merchants' Guild, who'd begun openly complaining about Galatea's inability to stop the raids on caravans. Another of the middle class Councilors starts backing removal. 9). Galatea fires the lead investigator, ostensibly over drug use, but the official statements fool no one. Then she announces intent to pardon her bodyguard. This breaks off another middle class Councilor, bringing the total backing removal to eight. 10). While the bodyguard is still in custody waiting for the pardon, Gal arranges an attack on her most vocal living critic: a noble and retired general who is currently a pro-removal Councilor representing the Old City. Shrike foils the attack. 11). The captured attackers are discovered to be minor villains previously in prison or the sanatorium. One of them--a young woman with a worsening case of pyromania--had ties to the last novel's antagonist and almost burned down Izar's granaries as part of his contingencies for his contingency, so she's widely reviled by most of Izar. She reveals Galatea had them released in exchange for their help. 12). The attack and evidence Gal ordered it persuade the other noble Councilor to back removal. The City Council votes to remove Galatea from the throne; guards who didn't want to take the bribes are dispatched to arrest her, and Shrike aids the operation. Gal is imprisoned, awaiting trial, until the disasters triggered by this sequel's other big plot line enable her escape. That hanging thread gets dealt with in the next book. Thoughts?
Sounds good in summary. An issue you may face in writing it up is actually that's a lot of very dry details. 3 clever plot threads about political schemes at the same time could be enough to follow. What I mean is would someone who has not been involved in the creation of this world follow all of that in writing and be engaged with the relevance of events. Once you have written it up and I think that you should (in full) I think you would need to go back over and be brutal removing detail about events which could merely be alluded to for the plot to progress.
A lot of this would be only alluded to. With the first novel, I covered many of the big political moves and the public view of goings on through interludes between the chapters. Mostly newspaper snippets, but also letters and journals. I'll probably do the same thing with the sequel, though using more letters since a lot of the politicking is out of the public eye. The course of the investigation--from the POVs of Shrike and the detective--are going to make up the bulk of the actual plot.
