plausiblefabulist spoke sooth:

That may be a social-contract problem which needs an off-table solution; but if so, killing the character certainly doesn't solve the problem.

Out of character, the group needs to discuss their characters a little bit more.  Killing Badass' characters nine times in a row would merely drag out the un-awesome experience for the other players.  But if Badass can explain the (probably obvious) nature of his character's personality in a way that the other players can see as a thematic issue, then we're good.

And maybe you can solve the problem in the fiction, if you treat the fiction as an arena for exploring it.

Absolutely This!  But since this is a social contract issue, you do want to set up that conversation out of character.  "Let's talk about your character," you say, turning to Badass.  "I've noticed that he's really balls-to-the-wall and doesn't seem to respond rationally when faced with danger or opposition.  What's the story there?"  Be careful with your tone here: You are not confronting him; you are expressing deep interest in the psychology of his character.  What you're digging for is a Theme that will allow the other players to view his character's personality as a deliberate creative decision.  Maybe he hasn't thought consciously about it yet.  That's okay, just keep asking questions until you get to it.

"Well," Badass might say, "Now that you guys have been with him for a while you've probably noticed that my character has some deep-seated emotional issues, and his propensity for violence seems to be his way of acting out, a way of redirecting some inner conflict.  The problem is, he isn't really conscious of any of this.  He's walking around filled with rage because of these suppressed memories.  Shit, they must be something horrible."  He doesn't need to tell any "secrets" and this isn't a Read roll, but suddenly everyone has a new angle on this guy.  Suddenly we have options.  Dramatic, meaningful, options.

Just found this today and it's a great idea, cleverly executed.  The six "themes" for progressing location descriptions are inspiring, and I think I'll steal them for a brainstorming mechanic. :-)

@Radan - It seems to me you are looking for Gamist or Simulationist mechanics in a Narrativist game, where they really don't exist.  This is not to say that AW couldn't be augmented by additional tables, charts, rules, etc - many people do that - but it does mean the logic of the game is going to have to change if you do that, and the change can come from nowhere but the MC herself, because the rules don't even go there.  Basically, I think the difference between G/S games and N games is what's confusing you.  This is a much broader question than the mere valuation of gigs, so we must take a step back to see what the game is really telling the MC to do.

AW is not about (quasi-)realistically simulating an entire world-system, and it is DEFINITELY NOT about tabletop mechanics with the goal of making everyone's situation and challenges as "even" as possible.  AW is about generating a great STORY, just like a great movie.  Do you expect movie heroes to begin at level 1?  Does DIE HARD begin with its hero at level 1?  Of course not.  This is a movie about a hero who has already reached "kick-ass" levels, and we want to see him do his stuff.  Over the course of the STAR TREK series, did Mister Spock advance at exactly the same rate as Captain Kirk?  Did he get pay raises at the same rate?  Nobody cares.  That's not even a concern, as long as the stories are good.  See, in a game like this, "game balance" in the traditional sense (i.e., making sure it is equally costly/difficult for each character type to attain each goal) is ridiculous and actually UNrealistic.  Movies don't work like that, and life doesn't work like that.  Victor is not telling you a set value you must adhere to like a "Law".  Rather, he's simply reminding you that you should "tax" each character at a roughly reasonable rate FOR THAT CHARACTER, to give them reasons to keep moving.  These reasons (and their imaginary value in barters) will differ for every character (which is why they can't really be codified, except in general and descriptive ways).

That said, however, there is one aspect of "game balance" that's still important on the metagame level: It is important to make sure your players never feel like you're favoring someone by making his play "easy" compared to the others.  This is why we "tax" hardholders and crew owners, but not battlebabes.  The things these characters consider important can't even be rated on the same scales, and some of them may have no economic value at all (but great personal value).  Having big resources will bring bigger problems, require bigger costs, and will probably be harder to defend.  But exactly HOW is always up to gameplay itself.  For example: character A and character B may begin the game with wildly different levels of wealth, and this level of wealth will be considered relatively "normal" for them.  So a "threatening move" for character A (say a hardholder) might be "one of your power generators is about to explode" while an equally threatening move for character B (a poor kid wandering the wastes) might be "your knife blade has gone dull".  The relative economic costs of these problems are obviously quite different; however, they are equally bad TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL PLAYERS, because the difficulty of any problem is relative to whatever that character considers "normal".  So you can threaten a hardholder with mounting expenses, and you can threaten a poor wanderer with minor equipment damage.  Both threats are equally devastating to the player facing them.  Drama ensues.

Soundtrack for the Firebug: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KB54p8_wh8

I'd be interested to hear how the modifications turned out.  Was the Firebug ever finalized?  Is there a trifold playbook?  For particular players, this could be a very interesting PC.