Was Don too ruthless in firing Lane?
>>216514348Yes, Bert and later Pete covered for Don over a much bigger secret. He should’ve given Lane a chance.
>>216514348Of course he was. You know Don isn't a good person right? He's the protagonist but a bad man.
Don is selfish and has very little empathy for anybody until that final episode
>>216514348Yes. It almost felt like bad writing with the “I can’t trust you” shit and irony of it all.What was the purpose of Lane not having a suicide note but just a boilerplate resignation letter? Just implying he didn’t have anything to say?
>>216514824>>216514863>>216514866>>216514913you are all overly-agreeable pussies
>>216514964Should Don fire himself for doing things worse than Lane?
>>216514348Yes. But he did it because he (don) was seen as having recently lost an account/costing the firm a bunch of money or something iirc. He would not normally have been so brutal.
>>216514348Was it wrong? No embezzlement and forging signatures is no small thing. Is he a hypocrite? Sure enough.
>>216514348Seeing that Lane was capable of doing such a thing and obviously was bitter towards Don I don’t blame him for doing it. What would stop Lane from doing it again if he wasn’t caught?
>>216515071What did he do that was worse?
>>216515832The truth of Don’s identity put the firm at greater and constant risk than what Lane did.
>>216516052Not really. As Bert said - "who cares?" "A man is whatever room he is in" - clients would think the same, and worse case Bert could have just fired Don.
>>216514348absolutely. it was retarded, because lane despite his misdeeds was still the most trustworthy person there, and it was hypocritical. don had pulled much worse shit over the years, he left without a trace for a month, he was in fact constantly letting everyone down and was a permanent liability. nobody had reason to trust him on anything while he also rarely contributed anything of value.
>>216516067that stance turned out to be a bluff by don and bert, as we later learn and pete explicitly points out as a panicking, fevered don urges him to drop a prospective client in fear of the associated background check. don paints a clear picture that the result might turn out disastrous not only for him but the firm as well. maybe watch the show if you want to comment on it
>>216516195losing one client is not the same as embezzlement and forging signatures, dummy
>>216516067Bert said that because it suited him but was ready to dangle the truth over Don’s head to get him to sign a contract. You see Bert getting angry at Don over the Lucky Strike letter, getting him to do the newspaper profile, trying to manage Don’s image, he personally doesn’t care about Don’s background but that doesn’t mean he’s indifferent to reputation. We see the truth costing the firm the American Aviation account without it even coming out. Even if you assume indifference to Don’s situation from most clients, it would cost them aviation, defence contracts and political campaigns like the Nixon one which are necessary to maintain their stature and connections and attract other accounts. >>216516277They lose accounts all the time. The issue is desertion, fraud, identity theft and who knows what else for all they know which might cost them every account after that.
>>216516277>losing one client is not the same as embezzlement and forging signatures, dummygood then that i never said they were
>>216514348At least he wasn't as ruthless as Joan's husband
>>216514348Man Men is gay
>>216514348>>216514824>>216514863Kill yourself Jew
>>216517176Arguments?
