Until recently, for the past month or so, all of my contact with an associate with whom I've conducted business, was wholly dependent upon a third party, the individual who introduced us to each other. Aside form this third party's role as the one who could put him in contact with me when the business need arose, he was totally irrelevant in regards to contributing anything to our business. However, for the rather insignificant role that he was permitted to play, he was very well compensated, from the other guy, of course.
In accordance with the "code" governing such relationships, no attempt to eliminate him (his role) was made by either me or my new-found business associate. The principle embodied in this "code" is that, because the "associate" and I are total strangers, there is absolutely no grounds upon which we can, or should, trust each other, especially given the nature of our business. In effect, the third party is dangerously responsible for the guaranteed safety of the two principals, in every respect. So, it is this "code" that justifies his (the third party) being compensated for his "role," and at the same time, prevents attempts to eliminate him.
But as the situation evolves, the two principals begin to become more familiar and knowledgeable about each other, which normally leads to trust. At some point along this line, enough trust will accumulate to render the "guarantee" of the third party unnecessary and he will be out of a "job."
In this case, however, because the third party was abruptly jailed, this trust-building process was necessarily shortened. Of course, the process had proceeded far enough so that neither of the two principals felt uncomfortable proceeding on without the "benefit" of the third party.