I don't think that logic works. In your vein, if I say " If it gets hotter, I'll want it to be colder" that would imply that if it gets colder I'll want it to be hotter. That doesn't necessarily have to be the case thought.

If they made a profit and I want them to pay more than the base fine doesn't mean if they made a loss I want them to pay less than the base fine.

I think the rest of your come t stands though. There is difficulty I proving profit and Hollywood accounting can probably change those numbers.

> If they made a profit and I want them to pay more than the base fine doesn't mean if they made a loss I want them to pay less than the base fine.

I’m not saying they would get a rebate just that for this to be meaningful a large portion of a given fine would be based on profits. So a company receiving a fine based on their profits would argue they made less money from the behavior, it’s a legal argument without any risk.

Consider a fine for a mid sized company that’s base 100k + 10m based on profits it ‘goes away’ if they win but it also ‘goes away’ if they drop it by 99%. Thus just as much effort would be spent on how much money they made as is put forth to defend the fine in the first place.

It's not about what you want nor is it about exacting revenge. The end goal is simply a marketplace where a given behavior isn't happening. Appropriately structured fines should accomplish that.