It's a good argument as the payment was going to be upfront, not after.
But if it was BSV/KG/some troll they would just need her response. It would go "hey, I'll pay you 3k right now if you send me the video." Then if she responds with "Okay, send the money first," or anything along those lines, they take those screenshots and post them everywhere and keep arguing that MW or her husband or whoever they think is behind the account because they were willing to accept 3k. Again, just to be perfectly clear I think the core of the story is true and I'm not trying to demand additional evidence or anything like that, I just don't think this is as much of a smoking gun as people make it out to be.
I mean, I think it's common sense to be incredibly doubtful about anyone offering a huge sum of money for something that is very clearly not worth that much, even if they are willing to pay upfront. Hell, even if they do pay upfront, there's always the possibility of cancelling a transaction so it doesn't actually clear. It can actually mess up your finances if you tried to transfer or spend the money, since it is still possible for them to pull it. Slight powerlevel, but I had a nasty client that tried to scam my work several years ago using this technique. They offered like 8k more for a job than they needed and even wrote the check in advance. Fortunately, since it seemed too good to be true, I googled them and found out it was a pretty common scam.
*Edit to address this*
Going through this i do have a question, which might have already been answered, but I don't remember. I would imagine the NDA includes a provision that you are not allowed to disclose that someone is a client of yours, or any personal information (such as dicksize, although this specific example probably not explicitly stated). Could it therefore not already be argued by DSP that you have already violated the NDA and that you have crossed the 'very very thin line' as you say and that the only reason he would pay, even though he might arguably be justified in nullifying the contract due to the (implied) threat of more information coming out.
Now I do not know your exact NDA, but to me (without the specifics) it seems like there is a good chance that what you would see as not breaching the line could be argued to breach the NDA and thereby still create issues for your escorting if there would not be the possibility of more information coming out. While I have no reason not to believe your story and hell it's giving me great laughs, this part is difficult for me to reconcile with your insistence on the NDA and I can see how it can be taken by some as leading to issues with your credibility.
With a traditional NDA, yes, but we've gone over this before. The NDA isn't really for threatening a lawsuit like most other NDA's are. DSP can't argue that she broke the NDA, because then he'd have to admit that there was an NDA in the first place, and the whole entire point of this is that he does not want to admit to hiring Kim.
If Kim outright posted indisputable proof, DSP would have no motivation to pay. Right now, she's lighting a fire under his ass. He can try and argue all that he wants that he shouldn't have to pay because she broke the NDA first, but all that would result is her having no reason not to post the videos/photo evidence she has.
You could also technically make the argument that Phil broke the NDA first by posting pictures and blocking Kim, which she mentions was specifically something that the NDA was designed to prevent.
