Illegal Comma to Enhance Clarity [closed]

Consider such a concise law or rule: AviD's Rule of Usability §§:

Security at the expense of usability, comes at the expense of security.

It uses the comma splice. Someone suggested that §§:

[...] either there should additionally be a comma after the first word or, as I prefer it, there should be no commas in it at all. I think you intended the comma to indicate a pause, which is grammatically incorrect. In this case, try an en dash (with spaces), an em dash (without spaces), or an ellipsis (with or without spaces).

However, any kind of dash breaks up the sentence too much, an ellipsis is just out of place here, and adding a comma at the beginning (after "Security,") would drastically change the meaning of the statement. Also, removing the comma altogether just leaves it as more confusing and harder to parse.

From an unscientific poll of some of the other English readers (in Sec.SE), it seems almost everyone agrees that in this case it is better off leaving the single orphan comma. (Someone even said that it is legitimate grammar in 18th century..)

But the more I think about it, it seems to be hindering clarity (at least for that user) , does it? .

So, how should the concise law or rule best be formulated?

Does using a comma really hinders readability (parsability) for a significant amount of 21st century English readers?

I don't mind the comma, and I think I see why you wanted to phrase this as such, but it really isn't clear enough to become a "rule of thumb" - if that's what, in fact, you were shooting for. You could clarify it by simply saying:

"Compromising security with usability leads to compromised security."