A. Mesnil—RS: Social: “Assuming we’re successful, what do we do with Ponte and Foster when we’re done?”
R. Nicolora—Founder One: “Fly them back to Boston on NIATROSS. From what I’ve learned tonight, Foster deserves to get his life back. I’ll even help him out with a new identity.”
A. Mesnil—RS: Social: “What about the client?”
R. Nicolora—Founder One: “Don’t worry about that; you have more urgent matters to attend to. I’ll handle Meredith. Founder One out.”
Albane strode into the adjoining suite and with fire in her eyes, addressed her colleagues. “Gather round… we’ve got a rescue mission to prep.”
“Have you ever participated in a hostage negotiation, Mr. Foster?”
“Call me, Will. And no, I haven’t.”
Albane crossed her legs and leaned forward in her chair. “Although some would disagree with me, I consider hostage negotiations to fall under the umbrella of Game Theory. Are you familiar with the logic problem commonly referred to as the Prisoner’s Dilemma?”
Will nodded. “I studied it in college, but it’s been awhile.”
AJ shook his head. “I’ve heard the term, but to be honest, I can’t say I’m well versed on the subject.”
“Okay, let’s walk through an example to refresh everyone’s memories,” Albane said reassuringly. “The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a simple but powerful logic game with two players. In the classic scenario, two criminals are arrested for reckless driving after committing arson. However, the police don’t have sufficient evidence to convict either criminal, that is, without defecting testimony from one criminal or the other. So they place the two criminals in separate rooms for interrogation and offer them deals for their testimony in court. Both criminals find themselves to be players in a game with four outcomes; each outcome is dictated by whether the players choose to defect or cooperate with the other player.
Case One: Both criminals cooperate with each other and remain silent. Each man is sentenced to one year in jail for reckless driving. Neither is implicated in the arson.
Case Two: Criminal A defects by incriminating Criminal B in the arson, while Criminal B remains silent. Criminal A goes free. Criminal B is sentenced to ten years in jail for the reckless driving and the arson.
Case Three: Criminal A remains silent, and Criminal B defects by incriminating Criminal A in the arson. This time, Criminal B goes free and Criminal A is sentenced to ten years in jail.
Case Four: Both criminals defect and testify against the other in the arson case. Each criminal is sentenced to six years in jail.”
AJ rubbed his temples, concentrating. “Okay, so if I heard you clearly, the best scenario is for both criminals to cooperate and remain silent so that they’ll receive only one year jail terms.”
“Yes, the best mutual outcome occurs when both players cooperate with each other. But remember, each player would do best for himself if he defects and his partner remains silent,” Albane explained. “Game theory says that rational self-interested players will always defect in a single iteration prisoner’s dilemma. In the effort to achieve their personal best-case scenario of zero jail time, both criminals will defect. In doing so, each will end up with six years. Another way to think about it is, when the participants in a prisoner’s dilemma do not trust each other implicitly, then fear of being the sucker stuck with the ten-year jail sentence will drive both players to defect.”
“What do you mean by a single iteration prisoner’s dilemma?” AJ asked.
“What I mean is that cooperation only emerges as a strategy when the players both intend to participate in another round of the game. Keep in mind, prisoner’s dilemmas can be redefined in an infinite number of scenarios: business, finance, military strategy, evolution… you get the picture. The outcomes don’t have to be punishment; they can be tangible goods, currency, time, goodwill, etcetera. The point I’m trying to make, Will, is that screwing your opponent is a perfectly acceptable strategy if you plan on never seeing him again. But, if he is anyone you intend to have future interaction with — a business acquaintance or a friend, for example — then cooperation emerges as a leading strategy.”
“How does any of that relate to hostage negotiation?” Will questioned.
VanCleave interjected, “Two-party hostage negotiation is just a prisoner’s dilemma with window dressing. Both parties have two choices: cooperate or defect. In hostage negotiation, both sides feign cooperation while pursuing the strategy of defection. It is important that you realize this fact in our upcoming negotiation with the bounty hunter Raimond Zurn. The laws of game theory dictate that he will defect on any promise.”
Will deflated. “Whatever Zurn promises, it will be a lie?”
“Yes.”
“Then Julie will die… no matter what we do?”
Albane smirked. “No. Because our strategy is also to defect.”
“May the shrewdest defector win,” Kalen cheered.
“Then what is our plan?” Will asked.
“We negotiate a hostage exchange,” Albane said, her voice velvet.
“We ask for Julie and they ask for…”
The four compatriots stared at him, but they said nothing.
His eyes darted from face to face to face until at last, quietly, he said, “Me.”
Chapter Forty
Julie trembled uncontrollably.
Raimond was pressing the cold, steel muzzle of his pistol against her temple so hard that her head was craned over to the limit, her ear nearly parallel to the floor. She did not know the identities of her interrogators, but she had learned that Meredith Morley had hired them. Bounty hunters, she surmised. The nature of Raimond’s questions told her that they knew little about her, save her name and the fact that she was with Will. Clearly, Meredith had not told them anything substantive about her. They didn’t know that she was fluent in German, because they had conducted their side conversations within earshot — a lucky break, and one that had saved her a great deal of pain.
But the phone call moments ago had changed everything.
The news of his brother’s death had flipped a switch in the German boss man’s head, and now he was like a rabid dog. She gave herself a 10 percent chance of survival. Since he couldn’t kill the man on the black motorcycle who he blamed for his brother’s death, odds were she would be an acceptable stand-in for his revenge. It didn’t matter what she said. Talking only would infuriate him. For the first time in her life, she could feel Death’s breath on the nape of her neck. This was not a nightmare; it was real.
She began to sob.
“WHO IS THE BLACK RIDER? WHO KILLED MY BROTHER?” Raimond screamed.
“I told you. I don’t know. That wasn’t part of the plan. My job was to stay close to Foster and keep him from running. Everything else was orchestrated by Meredith Morley; she didn’t tell me the details. I was just supposed to get Foster to the meeting. She was in charge of transporting Foster back to Prague. I don’t know anything else. I swear. I’ve told you everything I know.”
Raimond yearned to pull the trigger and unleash on this American girl all the hatred and fury he felt against the black rider. Against Meredith Morley. Against William Foster, and against the whole fucking world. But his index finger was noncompliant.
He withdrew the pistol muzzle from Julie’s temple. Her death would revenge nothing. Her murder would not quench the fire raging in his soul. Julie Ponte would serve his needs better as a bargaining chip. He threw the weapon onto the concrete floor of the warehouse, raised his fists toward the sky, and unleashed a bloodcurdling scream. When he was done, Raimond collapsed to his knees and buried his head in his hands.