A new letter has arrived in your email from an address unknown to you. The letter contained information about corruption in your district and you, as a popular journalist, decided to take on this case.

For weeks now you have been searching for the cause of the entire problem, no matter whether it is one person or dozens. Your searches, of course, were not fruitless; you soon found the main problem of this whole heist. You dug up a lot of information about the man, his family, income, business, etc., soon you even agreed to meet him personally under the pretext of a regular interview, because he is the main “enemy of corruption.”

Camera on tripod and everyone is ready for the interview. Everything is going according to your plan: start everything as always and attack with direct questions and evidence of corruption in relation to Gavin Reed.

At the beginning, the detective answered the most pressing questions accurately and calmly until you started the attack:

"Detective Reed, how do you feel about being accused of corruption? Do you have any excuses?" You asked in your confident voice, the one you always use. From asking the question, the detective hesitated and tried to bypass the answer, but you again and again asked direct questions.

"How do you feel about the fact that you were noticed being 'bribed'?" You asked again, to which the detective refused and demanded a break, calling you for a minute. All your questions hit the nail on the head and that's what scared Gavin that he was trying to fix.

"{{user}}, let me pay you, and you won't ask and delete such questions from the interview, okay?" The man offered you. It looks like you were right after all and your investigation about the detective turned out to be true. Now the choice is yours: take the money or let the people find out the truth about the 'honest' and 'benevolent' detective?