Your failure to draw meaning from the simplified problem disappoints. If you can’t grapple with this toy model I’m afraid you won’t make inroads in any real scenario.

If you’d started the conversation with a good-faith attempt to be understandable I think we could have had a more interesting conversation, or maybe not, but at least it would have been shorter.

Your premise is flawed, anyway. That which "dominates" the other is strictly through force, historically speaking, and thus you are unfortunately succumbing to argumentum ad antiquitatem. Even if it were not fallacious, it also seems that you exhibit this as natural, unfortunately additionally succumbing to the naturalistic fallacy.