My adversary can’t See my Raise and won’t escalate, so I’m winning the conflict. It’s guaranteed.
BUT
he shot me in the process, giving me some 3d10 fallout. And now I’m angry. I want to retribute in kind.
Question: can I smoke his ass one last time, and THEN win the conflict and whatever was at stake? If so, how do I do it? By the rules, it doesn’t seem possible, as conflicts end when someone can’t match a raise, or gives. Right?
Complementing the initial idea…
How much of a problem it would be to include a “Last Shot” rule that looks like this: “If you want, when the adversary can’t see your final Raise, you can inflict a 3 dice fallout on him as a Last Shot” .
(And maybe add “But if you do it, he/she carries the higher dice of that Fallout to a follow-up conflict. At least as long as revenge burns in his/her heart” )
By the rules, you could do a follow up conflict but not just get a last shot in.
Personally, I wouldn’t use a Last Shot rule. The conflict you had was finished up and going for a final shot is basically inviting a new conflict where you’re trying to hurt the person. That changes the stakes and the person who lost the previous one should be able to go into that new one and not get fallout just dumped on them.
Depending on the stakes and result of the first conflict, is there a reason why the GM can’t just say yes and let you shoot them afterwards, without initiating a new conflict? If you’ve won decisively and the other person is at your mercy, that should be an option (though, again, this depends on the stakes of the first conflict).
But a follow-up conflict with “Trying to hurt the person” as stakes sounds odd, no? I mean, let’s suppose we go ahead and do it. What’s done by the end then? How much “hurt” is applied if I win?
However much you inflict. They might give in.
Being able to get in a shot without any chance of retaliation seems pretty against the system. If you’ve been hurt and are angry about the fallout you’re taking, deciding you’re going to hurt the person more seems like a great conflict to me.
Hmmm… stakes being “I want to hurt you” feels very visceral, I give you that. On the other hand, without some interesting external motivation, it feels like it could end up dull pretty fast. Like in your typical “I want to stab you” combat. Don’t know.
Would that Last Shot idea (and the Revenge bit) infringe some actual rule in some way? I think it contradicts Giving? Like, you’re supposed to Give instead of Seeing whenever you want and avoid the fallout right? So the Last Shot woud break that I guess?
It definitely contradicts those. I also think it’s kind of against the spirit of how the rules are set up. They create a certain type of consequences with how the rules are set up and getting a final jab in like that breaks that idea.
Thanks, Mikel. You convinced me. A follow-up would be more apropriated yeah. 
Yes, the Last Shot rule idea works against a central design feature in Dogs, which is that you always have the option to Give instead of taking Fallout. That’s really key to making the premise of the game work!
Having said that, don’t forget that Dogs’ rule for GMs is “say yes or roll the dice”. If a “can I hurt him?” follow up conflict sounds uninteresting (and it probably is!), the GM should just say, “yes, you shoot him,” after the conflict ends. If there’s a good reason you couldn’t… then THAT might be an interesting conflict, but generally, I’d just say it’s good and done - he’s in front of you, you pull the trigger… we all know how that ends.
Edit: And if it’s a PC vs. PC conflict, don’t forget that you can apply “say yes or roll the dice” as a player, too. Sometimes, “I just stand there. Do you really shoot me, just like that?” might be just the right thing.
Not to be pedantic, but…
Yes, this is what I was trying to say above. If the conflict has resolved in such a way that there aren’t real stakes left in shooting the losing party, and it fictionally makes sense, just say yes.
Haha! You get +5 Pedantry points for quoting my own thread back at me.