there doesn't seem to be any mention of this possible problem in the game, and we've seen Neil on the construction site and talked to people who work with him like Luis the window salesman, so I would dismiss it as a hypothesis
Someone else made a similar point but 19 years of debt? There is such a thing as bankruptcy and it's not as hard as to get through as most think. It's also a plausible escape for Maya. Anyway we could quibble about it forever. The point is DPC doesn't research, he just makes up and that doesn't make for a very good story. Also, DPC claimed in one post that he visited San Diego once. I don't believe it, he's either totally oblivious or he steps around the truth a lot.
He's working, yes...
No that's just an English expression, it doesn't connotate that the bonding began at that time it just indicates that the activity brought Father and Son into a closer bond.
Josy and Maya are opposed to each other by DPC himself.
The fact that Josy is insecure is true. The rest is just how you interpret the character. Also, Josy having self-doubts is a total fan service, created so that more people like her.Insecure, needy, emotionally immature, sore loser, constant emotional blackmail and she's a cheater
And remember guys if the characters don't use common sense or logical reasoning it's not their fault.
Josy always had her self-doubts that wasn't something added later it there in ep1 and ep2
And remember guys if the characters don't use common sense or logical reasoning it's not their fault.
View attachment 3417092
Very useful mechanism also for self-identification
The question still remains, even if there was only a closer bond? It is suggested to us that Neil is the MC's sole caregiver since his birth. How is an even closer bond supposed to be? No, something is wrong there.
It will explain how most of the lawsuit theories bantered around on this forum just aren't possible, also look up standing, which is a major roadblock to most suits going forward. One of the provisions of standing is if the court can remedy the complaint in the suit. If the court can't remedy then the case is dead. So, take the Tybalt suit. MC didn't have the money to pay for the damages so the suit would be dead because the court can't order MC to pay money he doesn't have.
What does Tybalt's suit have to do with Neil's lawsuit? Nothing.
I'm going to try one more time and then I'm going to ignore.
Not trying to shutdown discussion, but I feel compelled to clarify that redressability is the element of standing that you're talking about, and that has nothing to do with whether a defendant can pay for damages. The questions is whether the requested relief is likely to provide remedy for the plaintiff's injury, independent of whether or not a defendant will actually be able to pay the judgement. A claim would lack redressability if, even if the court ordered compensatory damages, the money would neither address the injury nor deter future wrongdoing.
You don't need to explain anything to me because you don't understand one thing. Money makes the world go round. If Lynette's father sued Neil, then Neil is still in litigation and has to pay legal fees. Lynette's parents were rich and money rules the world. Then they ran out of money, Neil wins and Lynette's parents had to sell the villa.
