"Yeah, 'in Hell' is a usable classifier. I don't see why you assume you'd be strictly less fun for a demon to make or why you're assuming demons are the only people who could do something with it."

"Elves're prettier and don't age and if they let me have a wand for some reason I could leave and if they didn't they can't get any magic things out of it."

"If we're assuming malicious demon captor your original species is probably irrelevant, they can make whatever they want around the chip."

"In that case we could cure aging by chipping people and then transferring them to an Elf body - or make wizards by transferring 'em to a wizard body, maybe -"

"Doubt very much 'wizard body' is an option because we can't make magic things but maybe it can happen as an emergent property of something. I didn't go for getting a chip in spite of all the tempting blessings, though, it's a massive vulnerability even though I can't wake up one morning to find that I have experienced biological death and my chip has been harvested."

"Forking and someone grabbing it, are there other ways it's a vulnerability -"

"That's enough."

"I'm not trying to convince you to do it, but I will if it works for humans."

"For wizards. Unless you're really keen on being the test subject."

"I am not. But if it works for wizards - I've wanted a better memory and more attentional capacity even before I got a glimpse of what he does with it - he's so competent -"

Nod.

"I'll write Ister asking him about friends." He pulls out a quill and starts doing that.

"Lemme know when you want your mail checked. Ister's mail title is 'Messages for 87712', someone was flooding his basic."

"Thanks, good to know." Write write write. And - wand-flick to make the conversation private - "Want to have the discussion I didn't want to have over paper airplanes?"

"...You're doing the magic privacy thing?"

"Yeah. We can also go upstairs if you want but my room doesn't have, like, a study or anything - I should ask Bar if I can get a suite or something -"

"Magic privacy thing is fine, I just can't actually tell when you've done it and wouldn't like to be mistaken. What did you not care to commit to paper airplane?"

"I know a lot of terrible people. Most of the people I know, actually. I am pretty comfortable ignoring them when they offer me moral judgments, and I don't think they've contributed anything to my developing moral sensibilities, and I would like them to stop having any power over other peoples' lives.

But. 

There is something I would never do, even to the people who think hunting Muggles for sport was good character-building and a mercy since it kept 'em from starving. I would never, ever, say to them "you are such a bad person you don't get to defend yourself when I criticize you. When we disagree, you lose, because you are bad."

Do you think you're worse than they are?"

"No. If you're saying you're nicer than Amriac I'm not particularly going to contradict you but that doesn't seem like the point you're trying to make."

"I'm saying that if I asked Amriac I bet she doesn't endorse that either, and she doesn't realize that you all-but default to it, and the people who care about you do not in fact want to be leaping merrily on the 'you're bad so you lose' button but it's a sufficiently upsetting topic that they're not going to know how to navigate it correctly. And you'd respect their preferences better if you stopped having a 'you're bad so you lose' button."

"I lose in a sort of - rhetorical sense. I think I have legitimately lost credibility in a way that reasonably affects the extent to which I can be taken seriously on some topics. If people want to take me seriously anyway that's nice but it isn't fair to expect it. ...You may also be overestimating how much Amriac likes me."

"You have good judgment. You are not likelier to be wrong than you were before it happened. You lost - moral luck. I don't want peoples' credibilities to rest on that. I think any kind of functioning society worth building would be one where it is reasonable and fair to expect people to take you seriously. Existing societies, sure, probably not, but they are terrible and we're going to do better, you don't treat them as normative on any other topic -"

"I know I am not likelier to be wrong. But it is not unreasonable to have a heuristic 'why the fuck would you take ethical or risk-management advice from somebody who killed fifty-five million innocent people as part of a bargain with an evil god', I have not earned more consideration than heuristics like that from most people, and I'm not going to hold anybody to standards of 'dispassionately examine the circumstances of all mass murder you hear about before deciding how to treat the opinions of the perpetrators' just because it might get an irregular answer for my case."

"The content of the advice was evaluatable without any opinion at all on your credibility. And - if one is going to uplift the society with the transatlantic slave trade to the standards of 2179, which I am going to do, you've got to have a heuristic for actually terrible people that isn't 'exclude them from moral and policy discourse', if only because you can't use permanent categorical dismissal on the basis of past actions. Maybe we'll invent some kind of fucking ritual of repentance, I think that's the social function they serve, lets people do something terrible or - or be wedged into a place with something terrible in every direction - and then go on and feel justified in asking people to meet them as a stranger instead of as an instance of the worst thing they have ever done."

"I didn't say it was permanent. I'm immortal and I holed the planet less than a year ago."