>There are plenty of casios, and many of them comply with the law.
>There are plenty of Nazis , and many of them comply with the law.
Basically, if you believe the first sentence is legitimate, I have shown you a second sentence that is of equally legitimate construction. It is grammatically correct and has real semantic meaning. In fact, it is a true statement, just as the first statement (probably) is.
The fact that the second statement is true and is as legitimate as the first might strike a reader and cause them to think more about it.
Nazis rose to power by crafting law and used it to drive people to do things they wouldn't have otherwise. When some of those people were caught and tried for their actions, some of them argued that they did nothing wrong because they were merely complying with the law.
The sentences in comparison make the (implicit) argument that 'complying with the law' is somehow relevant to the exculpation of the actions of the entity in question. Many consider this to be absurd.
How you expected anyone to jump to the conclusion you were talking about the manner in which Nazis rose to power and their eventual punishment or lack there of as being the analogous part is beyond me. Especially since you kept your sentence in the present tense leading me to believe it was about modern day people who hold the beliefs of the Nazi party.
Exactly. The statement is irrelevant. Its use as the foundational axiom in the defense of casino's behavior is absurd.
Everything else (striking similarity to Nazi arguments) is bonus.