However, after looking closely at Hobbes's Sovereign, we can find many problems with it, the first being its immunity from civil law. Although he is still held accountable for actions such as punishing innocent citizens, his punishment comes from God and not man. He respects the law of nature and not the enacted civil law. But what good does it do for the subjects in Hobbes's version of a Commonwealth that the sovereign is subject to the laws of nature and not the laws created in the state? The logic Hobbes presents to defend this is reasonable; being subject to civil law not only means that the law is above the power of the sovereign but that there is a judge who can punish the sovereign. The judge in this case acts as a new sovereign, and since the judge is also subject to the law of the republic, he too will need a judge, and so on until confusion sets in and that the republic dissolves. (Hobbes, 215) However, through this, the ruler is able to do whatever he wants, changing and creating laws that suit him. (Hobbes, 176) We must ask ourselves this question: why would a sovereign need immunity from the law for his personal interest if he is acting as a representative of the subjects? Why would Hobbes create this character, the sovereign, to rule subjects on their behalf for their benefit and safety, while also allowing him to change the laws as he pleases, where such actions can possibly be committed ?