An interesting way to demonstrate community, leadership and collective responsibility could be just the ticket to improved inter and intra relationships across these cities. Let me develop this point.

Every so often a family emerge from Delaware, they are numerous but largely docile. They shoot only when shot at, generally only take one bodyguard with them and aren't treated with respect - in fact, they are usually gunned down on sight,  in a hurry. This is how it's been done thus far and, frankly, there is no rational reason to change this.

Or is there? Gun and blood lust are endemic in this thing. This isn't, in itself, a bad thing, but perhaps, in the spirit of discipline and commerce, a more principled (I use the term aware of the paradox) stance could be adopted.

Let us say, for example, that the Godfather of the Durden crew is spotted in New York. History has shown that he will stay put, only leaving if a would be assailant misses the target and flees the city. 

Now my point is this: Should or would a member of another city be allowed to shoot up the streets of New York without paying their dues to the powers that be of that city?  And vice versa, of course. What I'm getting at is the commercialisation of the shooting of the Delaware crews. The mobsters that appear every so often becoming the de facto "possessions" of whatever city that they find themselves in.  I'm sure that new and upcoming cities would welcome this new income stream and I'm also sure that more established cities would be happy shooting away knowing that some fellow from another city isn't trying to beat them to their target.

This would require a meeting of the Godfathers, protocols being agreed and a change of culture.  And rigid enforcement.  Perhaps this could all be a force for good?

And how would you enforce this embargo Zverev? It is my understanding, as inexperienced in the arts of death that I am, that when one shoots a Durden crew member, it is that common place that no one pays any attention. I can't remember the last time someone told me, 'Oh i saw so and so shooting such and such member of the Durden crew'. Are you suggesting that we ban people from cities that a fee hasn't been paid on their behalf? How do you police that? I'll give you an example. I'm in New Yourk and someone tells me that LV is a good place to sell my coke. I fly to LV and 10 minutes later the Durdens arrive to get sweet revenge on us all. Alas, my glorious leader hasn't paid for his family to be able to shoot in LV, but I am now stuck in that city for almost 12 hours.

I hope you can see my concerns.

Sharpe, you are indeed correct: it is indeed a shooting tax.

Now, LV could charge a lot.  And Detroit maybe couldn't charge as much.

But LV needs more, don't they?  

And, of course, DT could partner with LV in setting, and collecting, the tax.

And on it goes, this thing of ours.

Oblivion approached the soap box, attempting to look as professional as possible, waving away the smoke from his blunt to attempt to hide the smell.

Good day all. While I admire the thought that went into this idea, it's a hard no. A shooting tax has been implemented before, and it failed. For one, the logistics would be a nightmare. You would need hit men on every corner, and informants standing with them, constantly on the lookout for someone to land from the airport that hasn't paid up. This doesn't even factor in the relations nightmare. The biggest issue that was written about with my ancestors was the sheer hatred brought forth by the act. You're essentially forcing a family, or a city, to pay to go into that city. How does this encourage good behavior and friendly relationships? This would be the equivalent of a tariff, and these are hardly a good idea.

He took a brief moment to inhale a little more, and then a little more. It was some good shit.

Then there's the other matter, if every family is paying every family, then the money passed essentially becomes a wash, no? In which case, you've gone through the relations nightmare for no profit. It doesn't seem profitable when you think about it that way. Then consider this, if your leader doesn't pay, and you wish to partake in getting rid of these intruders, where does that leave your relations with your leader?

I believe you have great ideas, this one however doesn't seem to be fully fleshed out. Could you explain more about how this could possibly work, and be profitable?

But Oblivion, let's imagine that Detroit, for example, wants to impose a shooting tax.  They would need to have sufficient clout to do so.  Now, if they didn't have it on their own, they'd have to build a partnership with someone who did.

And isn't that what this thing is all about?  Building relationships and working towards a goal?

A hard pass due to the achievements that require us to visit every city most often for a length of time. This would be counterproductive. Those who don't shoot and want to fulfill an achievement could be forced into paying a tax.

Also, since LV could most likely charge the most, wouldn't this be a disadvantage to every other city? LV would profit; The other cities would show a loss.

That is absolutely what this thing of ours is about. However, I do not see how a shooting tax is the answer to that. Building a partnership can also be completed as simply as knocking on the door and having a conversation, or going out to dinner with other leaders. Making an agreement with another city to impose a shooting tax would decline relations with those that now have to pay.

If relationships are the endgame, there are surely other ways to accomplish this.

What bad could happen? Let's look at a sample scenario, one that was written about in the history books. In this scenario, City X is significantly weaker than City Y, but has a partnership with City Z. City Y determines, they're not paying the tax, because they like their money where it's at. Member of City Y flies into City X, commits a harmless murder of a civilian who has recently entered a life of crime. Member of City Y is murdered by City X, because the toll wasn't paid. Obviously, City Y isn't happy. City Y wipes out City X in retaliation. Now City Z isn't happy, because their ally just got wiped. Now there's war between Y and Z.

Kind of goes against that whole, building positive relationships huh?

Additionally, you stated some cities can charge more than others, based on their standing. This causes even more problems.

But Oblivion, is City X has amazingly talented diplomats, then it will be able to strike amazing deals with the other cities.  And that, Oblivion, is what I want to increase, enable and facilitate: the growing importance of diplomatic excellence across these cities.

I continue, therefore, to submit my idea as an excellent one with literally nothing untoward that could happen.