Asura’s Verdict - Ch. 15 - Mark

[MangaDex]

 

[EchoGirl]

Interesting that his arm mark isn’t visible to others but i guess it’d look like a tattoo which is frowned upon even if ur not an underaged student

You’d think the permanent marks on the ground would fade too unless it’s also some “demon territory” bs as well

Unlikely bc not too action-y but I wonder what would Happen if he punished someone in the middle of the ocean

I wonder what the police could realistically do in this situation anyways

 

[jackjack9]

Asura is getting crazier and crazier. So far he's only used the key on despicable people, but it's only a matter of time before he sends someone innocent to hell.
Hopefully Raika can get him to stop before it's too late.

 

[danbellucci]

hmm I'm becoming more convinced it's going to be a short-ish manga, like 4-6 volumes. I was hoping it would be on the longer end of shounen thriller manga, like deathnote with 10 or so volumes. maybe with some antagonists who have other items from hell or something.

 

[HippoPilot]

I mean he is right, when you get rid of bad people society becomes better. There's no disputing that.

 

[Hicleric]

I mean he is right, when you get rid of bad people society becomes better. There's no disputing that.

Feels like you're missing the point of the story

 

[EchoGirl]

Asura is getting crazier and crazier. So far he's only used the key on despicable people, but it's only a matter of time before he sends someone innocent to hell.
Hopefully Raika can get him to stop before it's too late.

cop aside, maybe he'll punish some delinquent and a parent will be like "how dare you?" if not another rich relative or some busy body who says he's in the wrong or so

It would be interesting to see if there are some 'exceptions' or like "We take all souls whether they sinned or not" (imagine if his mental state gets messed up he keys his own grandma)

I mean he is right, when you get rid of bad people society becomes better. There's no disputing that.

I do half expect some ppl to escalate things or so tho, one abusive father aside, it has been mostly classmates but wonder if he'll come across a yakuza

 

[screamdoom]

His school is nasty man, how many little shits do they have? Personaly sending them to hell is good thing but he escalated thing way too quickly, popo gonna start noticing a pattern.

 

[Bornsinner]

I wanted to see how the bullies got demon'd

 

[danbellucci]

I mean he is right, when you get rid of bad people society becomes better. There's no disputing that.

True. But liberals refuse to acknowledge this because liberals love evil which is why they absolutely hate the idea of destroying evil or punishing evil and thus they oppose the death penalty. You can tell that this is the reason they oppose the death penalty because they oppose the death penalty even in cases where the murderer is caught in the act and 100% guilty such as Axel Rudakubana. They simply love evil and so they side with evil and want to protect evil.
Liberals are some of the most evil people in the world.

 

[HippoPilot]

Feels like you're missing the point of the story

I know the point of the story, doesn't change the point of reality. Or the story's objective events. I can still say the point of the story is wrong or I disagree with parts even if the story frames its message as true. That's actual media literacy not "person is wrong because the story said so."

 

[HippoPilot]

I know the point of the story, doesn't change the point of reality. Or how the story's objective events. I can still say the point of the story is wrong or I disagree with parts even if the story frames it's message as true. That's actual media literacy not "person is wrong because the story said so."

There's no convincing argument for why nations should not use a death penalty for criminals. The chance you're convicted falsely and executed is infinitesimally smaller than a reoffender killing you or some other dangerous person at random as is.

 

[fight2live]

oh, he's addicted to sending bad people to hell

 

[strawberrywarrior]

I guess when you don't have much power yourself, you just use whatever you're presented with to enact your vision of 'justice'. And it's difficult to reflect and change course if you fundamentally see yourself as 'good' and 'righteous'.

Looks like he's started seeking out people to punish himself, aka doing vigilantism! He's being very reckless about it, though. It's easier to accept what he's doing when it was a form of self-defense. But he's as human as the rest of us, so his judgment can be clouded by emotion, manipulation, or plain bias and pride. Can't wait to see him crash out after realizing he sent someone innocent to hell (if it's even possible)!

 

[kohakusan]

There's no convincing argument for why nations should not use a death penalty for criminals. The chance you're convicted falsely and executed is infinitesimally smaller than a reoffender killing you or some other dangerous person at random as is.

Yes, so small, at very least it's 5% of deathrow convicts in the US alone were wrongfully convicted and lived to tell the story, how many others died without anyone ever knowing they were innocent, it's great to say that when it's not against you or someone in your family and death sentences don't stop people from killing each other, that's a terrible argument which the US itself proves wrong with a higher homicide rate than any other "developed" country without death penalties.

 

[HippoPilot]

Yes, so small, at very least it's 5% of deathrow convicts in the US alone were wrongfully convicted and lived to tell the story, how many others died without anyone ever knowing they were innocent, it's great to say that when it's not against you or someone in your family and death sentences don't stop people from killing each other, that's a terrible argument which the US itself proves wrong with a higher homicide rate than any other "developed" country without death penalties.

It's great to say this until a family member of yours gets murdered outside of prison in a far more likely scenario. You didn't understand a single thing said.

 

[kohakusan]

Ok so what about murderers who are caught red handed and are clearly 100% guilty like Axel Rudakubana (a black man who walked into a children's dance class in 2024 and stabbed 3 young white girls to death with a knife and wounded 14 others before being restrained and arrested and who said he did it because he wanted to kill white children)
There's no chance of them being innocent so surely you're fine with them being executed?
But let me guess, you STILL oppose the death penalty even in the cases where there's 0 chance of them being innocent because you want to protect evil.

according to liberal logic, human beings don't respond to incentives. This is the fairytale they tell themselves and expect us to believe when they claim that punishing crime does not make people less likely to commit crime. This is obviously delusional . If a country stopped punishing speeding , or theft , or rape, or murder , or any other crime then there would be almost no deterrence to thosd crimes so incidents of those acts would go up.
The fact is that the homicide rate would be even higher in the USA if the USA did not punish homicide.
In fact, even liberal , evil-loving, organisations that oppose the death penalty for evil doers like amnesty international admit that the death penalty deters crime, they merely claim that life-long imprisonment deters crime equally much .
https://www.amnesty.org/fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/act500062008en.pdf
"Evidence from around the world has shown that the death penalty has no unique deterrent effect on crime"
But obviously it's cheaper and much better for society to execute murderers and harvest their organs to save innocent lives in organ transplants or use them to do medical research on than to lock them up and feed them , guard them and look after them for decades.

But liberals like you consider protecting evil doer murderer scum to be more important than saving innocent people's lives by executing murderers and using their organs in lifesaving organ transplants.
This clearly shows that the driving motivation and top priority for liberals is that they love evil which is why they want to protect and side with evil doers even when they know that doing so means that innocent people will die.
This is how evil liberals and the ideology of liberalism is.

Oh I see, so you're just a maga, did I at any moment say I'm fine with that? Great guess, retard, I'm fine with those death sentences, I don't care but you're too simple minded to think anywhere outside of simple black and white logic. Of course your dumb mind thinks I don't want any punishment because I'm against death penalty. Jesus christ you're so dumb, get off fox news for once in your life. You read the amnesty pdf and still couldn't use your reading comprehension and link it like it supports anything you're saying lmao

I love that your argument is OKAY LETS HARVEST THEM WHO CARES, but completely ignores the ones that are miss trialed and misjudged like I said lol again, it's all dandy when it's not YOU or or your family who are falsely accused and convicted to the death penalty while being innocent.

And no, I'm not a "liberal", I know it's hard for someone with a simple mind like you to understand but you're just, again, a retarded maga who can't stop saying LIBERALS for every single thing in your mind.

It's great to say this until a family member of yours gets murdered outside of prison in a far more likely scenario. You didn't understand a single thing said.

Oh so it's "less likely" then it's fine, great logic and argument lol being killed by the state or being killed by a criminal, I guess we have to choose instead of deter both, again, black and white logic is amazing

 

[danbellucci]

Oh I see, so you're just a maga, did I at any moment say I'm fine with that? Great guess, retard, I'm fine with those death sentences, I don't care but you're too simple minded to think anywhere outside of simple black and white logic. Of course your dumb mind thinks I don't want any punishment because I'm against death penalty. Jesus christ you're so dumb, get off fox news for once in your life. You read the amnesty pdf and still couldn't use your reading comprehension and link it like it supports anything you're saying lmao

I love that your argument is OKAY LETS HARVEST THEM WHO CARES, but completely ignores the ones that are miss trialed and misjudged like I said lol again, it's all dandy when it's not YOU or or your family who are falsely accused and convicted to the death penalty while being innocent.

And no, I'm not a "liberal", I know it's hard for someone with a simple mind like you to understand but you're just, again, a retarded maga who can't stop saying LIBERALS for every single thing in your mind.



Oh so it's "less likely" then it's fine, great logic and argument lol being killed by the state or being killed by a criminal, I guess we have to choose instead of deter both, again, black and white logic is amazing

Now you're just contradicting yourself and backpeddling. If you're "fine with those death sentences" then you're contradicting your earlier opposition to the death penalty.
Opposing the death penalty means you think no one should be executed, it doesn't mean that you think only certain people should be executed.
So if you're opposing the death penalty then your position is obviously untenable as I show in this post https://forums.mangadex.org/threads/asuras-verdict-ch-15-mark.2325612/post-26762295 and if you now you're saying that you don't oppose the death penalty anymore then you're conceding that what I said in https://forums.mangadex.org/threads/asuras-verdict-ch-15-mark.2325612/post-26762295 is correct.

Your post consists of you saying "you're so dumb" rather than addressing my specific claims and refuting them.
You claim the amnesty pdf doesn't support what I'm saying yet I explain and directly quote that it implicitly does acknowledge that the death penalty is a deterrent
""Evidence from around the world has shown that the death penalty has no unique deterrent effect on crime""
This is implicitly admitting that the death penalty deters crime, which refutes your earlier claim that "death sentences don't stop people from killing each other, " clearly since even Amnesty International admits that the death penalty deters crime , that means that because of the death penalty , many people who would otherwise commit murder do not. That's the meaning of deterrence.
Amnesty is simply claiming that long term imprisonment deters crime as much.

You repeat your objection about people who are found guilty but are not guilty but I already neutralised that objection by specifically considering people who are caught red-handed like spree killers in public who are certainly guilty.
In these cases your objection holds no water.
So you haven't provided any valid argument that the death penalty should banned when we could easily give the death penalty to criminals who are 100% guilty like spree killers caught in the act with 0 downside about perhaps executing an innocent person , and we could use that 100% guilty murderer's execution to harvest his organs and save the lives of several innocent people.
So either you need to admit that I'm right and that we should have the death penalty or you have to expose yourself even more clearly that you simply want to protect evil because you love evil and would rather protect evil doers even when it means choosing not to save the lives of several innocent people when you easily could do so.

 

[kohakusan]

Now you're just contradicting yourself and backpeddling. If you're "fine with those death sentences" then you're contradicting your earlier opposition to the death penalty.
Opposing the death penalty means you think no one should be executed, it doesn't mean that you think only certain people should be executed.
So if you're opposing the death penalty then your position is obviously untenable as I show in this post https://forums.mangadex.org/threads/asuras-verdict-ch-15-mark.2325612/post-26762295 and if you now you're saying that you don't oppose the death penalty anymore then you're conceding that what I said in https://forums.mangadex.org/threads/asuras-verdict-ch-15-mark.2325612/post-26762295 is correct.

Your post consists of you saying "you're so dumb" rather than addressing my specific claims and refuting them.
You claim the amnesty pdf doesn't support what I'm saying yet I explain and directly quote that it implicitly does acknowledge that the death penalty is a deterrent
""Evidence from around the world has shown that the death penalty has no unique deterrent effect on crime""
This is implicitly admitting that the death penalty deters crime, which refutes your earlier claim that "death sentences don't stop people from killing each other, " clearly since even Amnesty International admits that the death penalty deters crime , that means that because of the death penalty , many people who would otherwise commit murder do not. That's the meaning of deterrence.
Amnesty is simply claiming that long term imprisonment deters crime as much.

You repeat your objection about people who are found guilty but are not guilty but I already neutralised that objection by specifically considering people who are caught red-handed like spree killers in public who are certainly guilty.
In these cases your objection holds no water.
So you haven't provided any valid argument that the death penalty should banned when we could easily give the death penalty to criminals who are 100% guilty like spree killers caught in the act with 0 downside about perhaps executing an innocent person , and we could use that 100% guilty murderer's execution to harvest his organs and save the lives of several innocent people.
So either you need to admit that I'm right and that we should have the death penalty or you have to expose yourself even more clearly that you simply want to protect evil because you love evil and would rather protect evil doers even when it means choosing not to save the lives of several innocent people when you easily could do so.

Bro, do you even read? "death penalty has NO unique deterrent effect on crime" are you alright? Are you blind or something?

You repeat your objection about people who are found guilty but are not guilty but I already neutralised that objection by specifically considering people who are caught red-handed like spree killers in public who are certainly guilty.
In these cases your objection holds no water.

So either you need to admit that I'm right and that we should have the death penalty or you have to expose yourself even more clearly that you simply want to protect evil because you love evil and would rather protect evil doers even when it means choosing not to save the lives of several innocent people when you easily could do so.

That's again, such a stupid take on it, what "neutralization" (lmao). I don't care about the guilty, I care about the innocent people who die by state sanctioned murders while all you want to brag about is being "right". That's you just saying you're okay with killing someone innocent because you can kill some random murderer too. And liberals are "protecting EVIL" lol as long as the innocent is not you or your family/friends, right? That's so smart

So you haven't provided any valid argument that the death penalty should banned when we could easily give the death penalty to criminals who are 100% guilty like spree killers caught in the act with 0 downside about perhaps executing an innocent person , and we could use that 100% guilty murderer's execution to harvest his organs and save the lives of several innocent people.

I'm against death penalty because that's not how it works in real life unless you want to change the law, which you clearly don't care.

 

[danbellucci]

Bro, do you even read? "death penalty has NO unique deterrent effect on crime" are you alright? Are you blind or something?

lol what do you think "unique" means? "death penalty has no unique deterrent effect" means "death penalty has no deterrent effect on crime that is different from other penalties" . It's saying that the death penalty is has a deterrent effect but other penalties also have a deterrent effect e.g. prison terms.
lol is English your second language, little bro?
You can tell that this is the meaning of the sentence both from the words themselves, and because THE SAME PAGE that you say I didn't read also states this explicitly later on
https://www.amnesty.org/fr/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/act500062008en.pdf
"However, there is no clear evidence that the use of the death penalty for such crimes acts as a stronger deterrent than long terms of imprisonment."

So now that I've explained what simple English sentences mean to you, how about your admit that this is correct:
""Evidence from around the world has shown that the death penalty has no unique deterrent effect on crime""
This is implicitly admitting that the death penalty deters crime, which refutes your earlier claim that "death sentences don't stop people from killing each other, " clearly since even Amnesty International admits that the death penalty deters crime , that means that because of the death penalty , many people who would otherwise commit murder do not.
And your earlier claim that death sentences don't stop crime was wrong.

That's again, such a stupid take on it, what "neutralization" (lmao). I don't care about the guilty, I care about the innocent people who die by state sanctioned murders while all you want to brag about is being "right". That's you just saying you're okay with killing someone innocent because you can kill some random murder too. And liberals are "protecting EVIL" lol as long as the innocent is not you or your family/friends, right? That's so smart

Wow you're having a lot of trouble tracking the argument.
You're saying "we should end the death penalty because of the risk of innocent people being killed"
I'm pointing out that there is 0 risk of innocent people being killed so long as you apply the death penalty SPECIFICALLY to people who are caught red handed and are certainly guilty like spree killers.
So your objection clearly does not work in this case. If you want to come up with an objection to ending the death penalty even for spree killers who are caught red handed and are certainly guilty then you have to think of something else besides the risk of innocents.
I don't know how I can make this any simpler for you to understand.

I'm against death penalty because that's not how it works in real life unless you want to change the law, which you clearly don't care.

obviously I want to change the law. at the moment executed criminals don't have their organs harvested to save innocent people. I want to change that.
So your objection that I don't want to change the law (which is irrelevant to the facts of the matter anyway) is wrong to begin with.
So are you tacitly agreeing that rather than ending the death penalty , it would be better for the law to be changed and for the death penalty to be applied specifically to those killers caught in the act who are 100% guilty like spree killers and for their organs to be used for organ donations to save innocent lives?
If yes then you're admitting that I was right. If no then you're exposing yourself that you simply want to protect evil because you love evil and would rather protect evil doers even when it means choosing not to save the lives of several innocent people when you easily could do so.