A humorous idea, indeed, however I see a few issues with this.
There are two ways of administering a jolt based on dishonesty. The first is automatic administering when the collar detects that the politician things they are dishonest about something. The second is that there is a 3rd party controlling when the collar delivers a jolt.
The problem with the first scenario is that the politicians may not always think what they're doing is dishonest. They may truly believe something dishonest is the right course of action.
The problem with the second scenario is that it's ripe for abuse. I mean a nice quiet job for the MPAA would certainly persuade someone's viewpoint on the honesty of a particular action.
I wonder if he could have gone the other way and instead of trying to defend against it, just admit to sharing hundreds of thousands of songs and plead for the maximum amount of damages per song. No court in their right mind would fine an average person more money than the US treasury had on copyright violations...
They could get away with some MAFIAA stuff, but calling out RIAA/MPAA won't end well.
Trying to work off your MAFIAA angle...
Perhaps some silhouettes similar to a Charlie's Angels pose representing the three AA's. They could have emblems on the silhouettes of a tape, a DVD (or film reel) and a book, or just be holding them like weapons. And of course instead of Charlie's Angels it would just read MAFIAA.
That's the best I think I could come up with working the AAngle.
If he just goes with it and gets extradited to the US, his story is over and Americans will forget and go on about their business.
The longer he resists, the more chances the US have to screw up, the longer the story stays in the headlines and the more people see/hear/talk about it.
"The reason we are fighting the good fight is to stop people from doing bad things and hold them accountable for their actions."
The definition of "bad things" varies from person to person, all of whom have a different level of morals and upbringing.
Just look at some examples.
The MPAA see the public as doing bad things unless they're paying for premium cable subscription without DVR and sit through every commercial.
The RIAA see the public as doing bad things unless they're out paying for every overpriced album released from their select pick of artists.
The Author's Guild see the public as doing bad things for trading and lending books or doing anything but buying overpriced hard copies.
On the other side of the fence, the public see the Banks as doing bad things by destroying the US economy and essentially stealing money, but you don't see the Government fighting the good fight there.
The public see the large Corporations as doing bad things by overstepping their rights, not paying their fair share of taxes, etc, but you don't see the Government fighting the good fight there.
The public see Wall Street as doing bad things by inflating stock prices and changing business practices to benefit the short term instead of long term, but once again you don't see any good fights being fought there.
So who's "good fight" is it? And what are "bad things"?
I'll just cut and paste a recent conversation I had with a friend of mine.
Keii: I'm sitting here thinking about the devaluating comment.
Keii: It's simple math
Keii: Mow much money did Warner Brothers make from Arkham City in the Steam sale?
Keii: Because just about everybody I know bought it.
Friend: Approx five bajillion
Keii: Now how much money would they have made from not having the Steam sale over the same amount of time?
Keii: Maths is hard, EA.