In San Diego v. S. D. & L. A. R. R. Co. (1872) 44 Cal. 106, our high state court recognized the origins of the conflict of interest statutes in the general principle that "no man can faithfully serve two masters, whose interests are or may be in conflict. The law, therefore, will not permit one who acts in a fiduciary capacity to deal with himself in his individual capacity. '. . . for even if the honesty of the agent is unquestioned . . . yet the principal has in fact bargained for the exercise of all the skill, ability and industry of the agent, and he is entitled to demand the exertion of all this in his own favor." (Id. at p. 113.) The law does not require that a public officer acquire a transferable interest in the forbidden contract before he may be amenable to the inhibition of the statute, nor does it require that the officer share directly in the profits to be realized from a contract in order to have a prohibited interest in it. Rather, 'the instant statutes are concerned with any interest, other than perhaps a remote or minimal interest, which would prevent the officials involved from exercising absolute loyalty and undivided allegiance to the best interests of the [state].' The fact that the officer's interest 'might be small or indirect is immaterial so long as it is such as deprives the [state] of his overriding fidelity to it and places him in the compromising situation where, in the exercise of his official judgment or discretion, he may be influenced by personal considerations rather than the public good.'. . .Moreover, prohibited financial interests are not limited to express agreements for benefit and need not be proven by direct evidence. Rather, forbidden interests extend to expectations of benefit by express or implied agreement and may be inferred from the circumstances." (Honig, supra, 48 Cal. App. 4th at pp. 314-315, italics added.)