Partners in Crime, Partners in Love

[MangaDex]

 

[leviadragon]

"In your eyes the rich are always heartless and ruthless."

I mean... they are though writer. They may not all be murderers, but in order to be rich you sure as shit have to be a ruthless bastard, that's just how Capitalism works. Constructing your simping-for-rich-people argument like this is pretty pathetic and does not make the enlightened or nuanced point you think it does, just because you wrote the internal reality of this story to justify it.

 

[FionaWitch]

The art is exquisite, beautiful ladies(gays), story is interesting. I love mystery and psychological especially beautiful MCs. I hope to have more uploads also I’m grateful who picked and translate this.

 

[Effendi_Kwantan]

If this is the long strip type, I will have to wait until years after years after years ..to see them finally being together.

 

[leviadragon]

This story is starting to get... troublesome. The most recent chapter in particular is acting as apologetics for police misconduct and repeating without question certain assumptions about the nature, value and moral rightness of modern policing. The fact that the story is framing Miss Forensics' coercion of a suspect and use of inadmissible evidence as leverage being morally justifiable is... pretty yikes.

Even the more straight-laced-by-the-books lead is using fairly coercive tactics to try and get the outcome she wants, with the sweet little lie of sentencing leniency for a confession, something that has never actually been any sort of legally binding agreement and thus the cops and/or court can renege on that at any time.

 

[HeksOf]

SUPEROWA HISTORIA
Nie mogę sie doczekać kolejnych rozdziałów,
Bardzo przyjemnie się czyta twoje tłumaczenie aby tak dalej 🤩🤩

 

[toxicsmurf]

"In your eyes the rich are always heartless and ruthless."

I mean... they are though writer. They may not all be murderers, but in order to be rich you sure as shit have to be a ruthless bastard, that's just how Capitalism works. Constructing your simping-for-rich-people argument like this is pretty pathetic and does not make the enlightened or nuanced point you think it does, just because you wrote the internal reality of this story to justify it.

I understand what you're trying to say, and as an anti-capitalist I want to agree with your sentiment. But the truth of the matter is, statistically (just google it) most multimillionaires and billionaires living today acheived their wealth through inheritance. They were born rich. Generational wealth inheritance makes up an overwhelming majority of the richest 1%'s source of income. I don't think being born rich inherently makes someone heartless/ruthless or whatever.

 

[leviadragon]

I understand what you're trying to say, and as an anti-capitalist I want to agree with your sentiment. But the truth of the matter is, statistically (just google it) most multimillionaires and billionaires living today acheived their wealth through inheritance. They were born rich. Generational wealth inheritance makes up an overwhelming majority of the richest 1%'s source of income. I don't think being born rich inherently makes someone heartless/ruthless or whatever.

You are correct that the process is not automatic or inherent. However there are substantial pressures on the psychology of nepo babies by their environment that make developing into terrible people much more likely, and judging by the behaviour of those who come from inherited wealth, I would speculate that statistically not many of them manage to escape those brain worms.

Hell, quite possibly the only moral thing you could do as a child of astronomical wealth once you have autonomy is to divest yourself of that money, pour it into worthy causes while still retaining enough money to be more than comfortable for the rest of your life, and likely the lives of your descendants. But a lot of the wealthy don't even bother with the cynical PR level of charity, much less something actually meaningful or impactful.

Continuing to sit atop a pile of stolen jewels does not make a person moral just because they didn't personally steal them, just ask the British royal family.

 

[solamente]

This story is starting to get... troublesome. The most recent chapter in particular is acting as apologetics for police misconduct and repeating without question certain assumptions about the nature, value and moral rightness of modern policing. The fact that the story is framing Miss Forensics' coercion of a suspect and use of inadmissible evidence as leverage being morally justifiable is... pretty yikes.

Even the more straight-laced-by-the-books lead is using fairly coercive tactics to try and get the outcome she wants, with the sweet little lie of sentencing leniency for a confession, something that has never actually been any sort of legally binding agreement and thus the cops and/or court can renege on that at any time.

tip: every time you read a manhua like this where Every Important Character Is Rich And Powerful And Hot And Correct you can just whisper "dont worry theyre just girlbosses" under your breath repeatedly and the problematicness goes away

 

[GlassDragon]

Will this ever get an update?

 

[210astat]

Will this ever get an update?

It would be nice...

 

[Turbotune]

It would be nice...

So true…this stuff is so popular in China but I just can’t read it over here with all those restrictions (but there are English translations, they are just behind a paywall and stuff, so…meh.)

 

[leviadragon]

Okay, so... chapter 28 huh? This is a fascinating glimpse into the philosophy regarding crime and punishment of... what I am going to go out on a limb here and hypothesize is mainland China? I am not certain of the point of origin, it could be Hong Kong or Taiwan, but the main ideological dispute between the two leads seems to be "well rats, even if we can prove he did the murder he won't get the death penalty because he is the surviving parent and needs to take care of the child" and even the one saying that doesn't mean we kill him ourselves is saying "even if the law is flawed I must follow it" which suggests that barriers put in place that stop a state-sponsored execution are considered an unfortunate limitation or loophole of that legal system.

which is a wild thing to be true for several reasons, first the implication that a child would be left in the home of a murderer, or that the murderer would need to be kept alive to provide financial support, secondly that execution seems to be the only outcome those officers would consider True Justice, and thirdly that this is the example being used to set up a vigilantism plotline.

I get that murderers getting executed is a popular "eye for an eye" policy with people, but that doesn't make it a good idea, it has pretty consistently failed at building a better, safer society for as long as human history has existed. And is China really so hostile to the idea of social services like adoption or the like that a murder dad needs to remain the caregiver of their child?