V Per Vendetta
V Per Vendetta --->>> https://tinurll.com/2tEzvz
Four years after his escape from Larkhill, V begins his vendetta against the government by blowing up Parliament on November 5, Guy Fawkes Day. V then kidnaps Prothero, who is now the "Voice of Fate" on the government's propaganda radio, and drives him insane by destroying his prize doll collection in a satire of the exterminations that occurred at Larkhill. V kills now-Bishop Lilliman by forcing him to eat a communion wafer laced with a lethal dose of cyanide. Norsefire had infused a perversion of religion into their rhetoric, saying that those who were exterminated were not pure in the eyes of God, and V's black joke was in forcing Lilliman to put some of his religious rhetoric to the test of transubstantiation. V then kills Surridge, the one Larkhill official who feels remorse for her actions, by injecting her with a poison which painlessly kills her. Having thus leveled the playing field, V moves his plans forward.
V non persegue solo la vendetta: la sua visone del mondo, la sua etica anarchica lo pone come distruttore, ma non si dà continuità, non per sé: infatti è alla ragazzina Evey, che si rifiuta di imparare ad uccidere, che trasmetterà la propria eredità perché costruisca e scelga senza imposizioni la strada da percorrere.
Plaintiff testified that, prior to Walker's election as Mayor, Walker told him "[b]asically that if he was elected mayor, that I wouldn't have a job." Plaintiff testified that he told Walker "that the police department, you know, showed proof, you know, of the need in town, and [Walker] said that he didn't think it was necessary for a police department to be there." Plaintiff testified that he believed Walker had a "personal vendetta" against him. He stated that, sometime between 1997 and 1999, he arrested Walker's brother for a curfew violation and Walker's brother was sent back to prison.
This court concludes that the undisputed facts presented in this case show that the Village was facing a deficit in its budget and that the expenses for the Village's police department had grown significantly in the years prior to Walker being elected as Mayor. The undisputed evidence also shows that, following the termination of Plaintiff's employment, the Village has only employed part-time police officers and has thereby significantly reduced the cost of the police department. In response to these facts, Plaintiff has argued that the real reason he was discharged was because of Walker's "personal vendetta" against him. However, this court concludes that this argument is based upon pure speculation on the part of Plaintiff with no evidence to support it. It appears that Plaintiff is just assuming that Walker had it in for him because he arrested Walker's brother some time between 1997 and 1999. The only evidence Plaintiff has presented as support for this speculative assumption is the conversation Plaintiff testified that he had with Walker before Walker was elected Mayor. Plaintiff testified that Walker told him he would not have a job if Walker was elected Mayor and that Walker "didn't think it was necessary for a police department to be there." This court concludes that this statement by Walker is consistent with Defendants' position that Walker believed the Village was spending too much for its police department and provides no support for Plaintiff's position that Walker wanted to get rid of Plaintiff because he had a "personal vendetta" against him. Indeed, the undisputed facts show that Walker offered Plaintiff the opportunity to take the SRO *974 position and remain employed with the Village. 781b155fdc