There you go again. Making false equivalencies. Victoria killing innocent people like having Raouls entire village murdered, tortured, raped is not the same as Theodora killing a sick child murdering rapist. They are not comparable in who they chose to kill and you know it. Stop with the word games or do you actually believe this? Cause thats fucked up.
Wow, way to continue twisting everything. You're just mad that someone doesn't see things the way you do. You're so narrow-minded that anything that doesn't agree with you is inherently wrong, so you just keep twisting things in your mind until the original argument is unrecognizable. The point never has been whether or not Victoria deserved to be punished. The point was is Victoria a redeemable character, and if so, what level of atonement is appropriate for her crimes.
In her mind, Victoria was killing enemies. In Theodora's mind, she was trying to kill an enemy. Whether or not they were justified in viewing said people as the enemy is a different argument entirely, and can easily shift depending on circumstances and perspectives. Regardless, in this universe, the ultimate punishment is not merely an execution. Fates worse than death can be had while alive (i.e. Victoria's case where she was constantly being eaten alive by bugs) and punishments can and do continue in the afterlife as well.
IMO, this arc shows Victoria is someone that can be redeemed. Of course, she must be punished, atone for her misdeeds, and change herself to be redeemed, but she is not like the Saintess, her father, and others who are irredeemable. Even though the Saintess was manipulated by the Goddess of Love, for example, when she was confronted with reality, she sought to save herself by sacrificing others, thus making her irredeemable. So the real question, for me, is whether or not Victoria will take the steps towards being redeemed. Her backstory demands she be given a chance, but whether or not she can be forgiven in the end depends on the actions she takes next.
