• daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        For instance: If the killers are killers for killing only one person and are killed by the metakiller after the fact. The doctor is saving lives while the killer is just adding kills without reducing the number of kills at any point.

        As a general rule: Under the assumption that killers would not kill again after being declared killers then the doctor will always save more lives than the metakiller.

  • sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    21 days ago

    Depends on who encounters more violent individuals right? I guess they both have demoted themselves to middle management and depend on the performance of others

  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    20 days ago

    It depends on how many people the killers would kill after their iteration with the doctor or the metakiller.

    To the number of total future victims you add the number of killers for the metakiller. Then to the number of total future victims you rest the number of killers for the doctor. You compare both numbers, the smallest number win.

  • village604@adultswim.fan
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    21 days ago

    The doctor would kill more people and the Serial killer killer would save more.

    Each serial killer would have most likely gone on to kill more than 1 person, so the doctor would be responsible for more deaths.