Isekai Meikyuu de Harem o - Vol. 3 Ch. 13 - Party 1

[Kiriha]

@criver Well, i won't deny that i'm a bit pissed at him lol
How i wish auto hide comment function to made sure i not accidentally read his shitty comments.

 

[littleoni]

@criver
Quoting:

A person who acts wrongly is blameworthy for so acting only if the action itself is a case of clear-eyed akrasia or the action results from a case of clear-eyed akrasia.
While the Broad Conclusion is stated in terms of akrasia, its main upshot is regarding moral knowledge and moral ignorance. An akratic action is one done in the belief that one should act differently.

Morality and lawfullness are different things. You are obligated to learn the law, that's why crime in ignorance is still crime (you could say you commited the crime of not learning the law). But morality judges only the intention of an action, not it's result.

The MC is antisocial, but not a sociopath. For that to happen he would have to be unable to feel empathy. While his empathic capacity is low, it's not absent.

Chapter 2, page 19: "Thinking of people as equal is kinda tiring".

I think this is a translation disaster. The whole panel makes no sense. It's supposed to be related to him riding the same carriage as a criminal to be sold as a slave, but it's not here nor there.

Chapter 2, page 23: "A brothel. It's a place where you can live out all of your romantic fantasies"

Obvious translation disaster. Either that he uses romance as in romanticism. Either of those cases make this point void.

Chapter 2, page 27: "The bandits were only small fries that were easily defeated in one stroke"

In response to being praised for it. It may, or may not be his real thoughts, but in this context it does not imply he disregards them. What he is supposed to be doing is disregarding himself ("You did this super hard thing", "No, it was actually easy").

Sells a person in slavery.

Applies local law. This enforces his moral graynes, but not blackness. Being unwilling to go against local law while disregarding a stranger who has intentionally wronged him is not evil.

Chapter 3.1, page 3: "If I can sell a slave then buying a slave is pretty much a given".

This is only there to point out he had not thought about the possibility before. It has no moral weight.

Chapter 3.1, page 3-4: "If I buy a slave could I really do whatever I want with them!?"

Again, considering the possibility. Being tempted. Falling into temptation. But so far he only thinks of the possibility, not neccessarily making it a reality.

Cahpter 3.1, page 6: "But isn't buying slaves supposed to be a crime? No... that's just the logic of present day Japan"

He has already accepted the fact that XXI century laws don't apply, so he is refocusing his moral compass to current law and customs. Everyone is free to apply or not personal morality. It's local morallity you will be judged upon.

Chapter 3.2, page 3: "I can buy Roxanne?"

Ehh ... Making an actual question ... Nothing more.

Chapter 3.2, page 9: "Have you ever considered buying a slave? ...Not really."

Half of a translation disaster, half of just bad expression. You can see the question more like "Have you ever evaluated a slave for purchase" (since that's what they are doing at this point)

Chapter 3.2, page 14: "Is a virgin slave's value... different?"

Why does this question out of all of them is the one that bothers you? If you are going to buy a product, you want to know how it value is measured, so you don't overpay for a feature you don't need. It's like asking "Does a GSM slot change a laptop's value?"

Chapter 3.2, page 17-18: "But, is it ok for me to buy a slave? But if I don't buy her, she'll be bought by someone else." ... "Even after saving a beautiful knight's village, I couldn't have my way with her."

In these couple of pages you have his thought explained. The fact that he doubts the morality of his action. Then considers whether it will or will not benefit Roxanne. Then whether the social system will allow him, or his actions will affect the social system. And then the part of the knight comes in as more or less of a joke, since it's completely unrelated. In fact, I would like to see the WN part of that since it was completely out of place and didn't help at all. What does the knight have to do with anything? He didn't help her directly, and there was never supposed to be a personal reward, it's just weird. Maybe it's a reference or a foreshadowing of her acting tsundere? (Something like her not showing aknowledgement of the fact that he has saved her village to later on go out of her way to help him?)

Chapter 3.2, page 21: "I don't want to admit it, but there's a part of me that wants to buy."

He admits to his moral grayness. It's redundant since we already knew that, but redundancy is more or less part of shonen manga. Maybe someone missed out the part where he had considered it 2 pages before.

Chapter 3.2, page 22: "Morals and feelings aside, it's physically impossible."

Up to this point he was waging his morals against his feelings. At this point he realizes he cannot buy her right there since he has no money. Nothing to discuss to the expression, nothing to extract from it.

Chapter 4.2, page 21: "Let's hunt some golden heads."

He is ok with murder. But that also has to do with the fact that the targets are bandits. Remember that you get a class based on your actions, and if you only steal or pickpocket you will get thief, not bandit. To get bandit you must commit violent crimes. So this would fall into moral grayness: He has no trouble killing people who are okay with killing other people. He doesn't consider robbery, for example, even if it would be more efficent (criminal status would not apply since he can hide his class anyway). Also you can consider it under the part of "unwilling to go agains local law", or more like "making use of local law", since the law encourages this kind of murder.

Chapter 6.1, page 11: "I'm confirming. I've got the feeling I haven been ripped off, and I want to confirm just how far she intends to let me go."

And immediately after: "I don't know what she thinks on the inside, but if she dislikes it, she's not showing it". So if she did show it, it would somehow matter? And the part about being ripped off is not explained either. How was he thinking he got ripped off? That her value is lower? That she is not a sex slave? How would that matter by previous explanation? (Just before we read that sex slave or not, her value would be the same -> selling a non-sex slave as a sex slave should not be ripping off? You can do the same things with a sex slave and with a non-sex slave, again it would not be ripping off? It makes me think of translation disaster)

Chapter 6.1, page 12: "It is unfortunate, but I have no intention of letting you go."

This is a sentimental moment for both of them. He has finally understood what he intends to do. So has she. The phrase has no further meaning than that: he intends to make use of the contract since he aknowledges that she is not against it.

Chapter 6.1, page 13: "Probably, it would be fine even if I pushed her down right here."

Yet he doesn't do it. The excuse he gives is that there are other things that he has to do first. Which turn out to be giving her better gear, letting her chose her own vestuary, then letting her clean herself and get used to his presence. Again, same as before, he is stating his capability of doing it, yet not making it a reality, That's what morality is about: judging whether is the right thing to do an action or not.

Chapter 6.2, page 16: "I will have her let me see them."

You are right with this one. But again, at this poing and with the counduct she has shown and he has aknowledged she has shown, it's more teasing than anything else.

And okay, let's bury tghe other discussion for good, it doesn't lead anywhere.

 

[criver]

@littleoni:

Morality and lawfullness are different things.[...] But morality judges only the intention of an action, not it's result.

I never said they were the same thing. However I don't think that ignorance excuses either (in most cases) . I will quote myself, since I already explained my thoughts on this in an earlier reply with relevant references backing up my statement:

You cannot purport to morality if you're performing unethical acts, regardless of whether you're simply ignorant or evil. Ignorance can only serve to explain why you you were more likely to perform unethical acts, it doesn't excuse those. Nor does it make them more ethical. You have an analog in law, namely the phrase: "ignorance of law excuses no one". Here's some reading material on the subject:http://brian.weatherson.org/moral-ignorance-excuse-2014.pdf,http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.494.8502&rep=rep1&type=pdf, http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/ODFF/ODFF.html

But you know what. This unfortunately is not mathematics, I am sure that for each person arguing against, you would have one arguing for. So I would just agree to disagree, since I don't think this specific point is going anywhere. On the other hand if I swap humanity for morality, then ignorance doesn't excuse inhumane acts anymore.

The MC is antisocial, but not a sociopath. For that to happen he would have to be unable to feel empathy. While his empathic capacity is low, it's not absent.

So you agree that he has APD? That makes things easier for me. Since you agreed to that based on my points:

Murder: check.
Lack of remorse: check (further reinforced by taking the property of his victims).
Failure to accept responsibility: check (rationalizes his actions).
Impulsive and reckless: check.
Deception: check (though I would argue that it was necessary in his case).
Failure to conform to social norms: check (at least in accordance to the social norms of his time, since these are the ones he's used to and knows best).

Then I believe that I can assume that you agree with those. Just for argument's sake, let's assume he's not a sociopath (since you don't need to be a sociopath to be morally corrupt), I'll get to that later anyways. Even then, just based on all of these points he's certainly morally corrupt. Or would you argue that this is not so?

Now onto the sociopathy point. Being a sociopath doesn't necessarily mean that you can't feel empathy, check your definitions. Let's see how many points our MC can get on the spectrum:
1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others - kills people to earn money.
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations - what he does on numerous occasions is certainly illegal not only by Japan's laws, but also considering the laws of the world he's in. The only thing he's been thinking about this whole time was his own lust. He stops before nothing to satisfy it (be it murder, slavery, deceit or whatever you can think of).
3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them - He basically needs a slave to be able to have an enduring relationship, simply because she cannot walk away.
4. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment - He's getting there, the first time he murdered he needed a whole 5 minutes to forget about it.

3 points are enough -> he's a sociopath.

Let's see what else our MC has in the bag:
Ego-centrism; self-esteem derived from personal gain, power, or pleasure. - His whole character is based upon him being op and striving to satisfy his lust no matter the cost. Definitely checks out.
Goal-setting based on personal gratification; absence of prosocial internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior. - Yup, kills people for money, which he needs to buy a sex slave.
Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another - Kills numerous people in cold blood for money. We also saw his idea of remorse in the first chapter.
Incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of relating to others, including by deceit and coercion; use of dominance or intimidation to control others. - It's like this was specifically written for our MC. I am starting to wonder whether the author wasn't simply browsing through the APD article on wikipedia and picking traits from there for the MC.
Lack of concern for feelings or problems of others; lack of guilt or remorse about the negative or harmful effects of one's actions on others; aggression; sadism. - checks out.

Chapter 2, page 19: "Thinking of people as equal is kinda tiring".

I think this is a translation disaster. The whole panel makes no sense. It's supposed to be related to him riding the same carriage as a criminal to be sold as a slave, but it's not here nor there.

Makes perfect sense though. He's about to sell a slave, so he decided it was time to start thinking accordingly. Doesn't make it any less unethical and inhumane.

Obvious translation disaster. Either that he uses romance as in romanticism. Either of those cases make this point void.

I have no reason to believe it's a translation mistake. It fits with the ideas of the MC, so why would it be a mistake. He simply cannot differentiate between romance and lust. Also you don't seem to know what romanticism means ,it's definitely not lust.

In response to being praised for it. It may, or may not be his real thoughts, but in this context it does not imply he disregards them. What he is supposed to be doing is disregarding himself ("You did this super hard thing", "No, it was actually easy").

You can't change the sentence to fit your ideas. He didn't say it was easy, he specifically said that they were weak. It's the definition of arrogance (especially considering he achieved it just because of his op sword). And he murdered them to boot - no remorse whatsoever.

Applies local law. This enforces his moral grayness, but not blackness. Being unwilling to go against local law while disregarding a stranger who has intentionally wronged him is not evil.

So if the local law is to rape, kill, torture, you would be fine with that? I am sorry, but that is plain evil. He's not "unwilling to go against local law", they asked him what he wanted to do with the guy that stole the bandana. He said just do whatever, and they gave the guy to him as a slave - he could have reconsidered or freed him, but nah, he wanted the money. Let me ask you a question - would you be willing to sell a person to a human trafficker if "he intentionally wronged you" by stealing something meaningless to you (he later burns same bandana while committing the massacre, doesn't seem to care much either)? I would get it if he's pissed and wants to get some compensation, but selling the guy as a slave is going too far. He's inhumane - I believe that this is not debatable. And he's immoral from today's perspective (and from the perspective he has been brought up with, seems like his conscience is really adaptable to say the least).

Chapter 3.1, page 3: "If I can sell a slave then buying a slave is pretty much a given".

This is only there to point out he had not thought about the possibility before. It has no moral weight.

He's thinking that one wrong makes two ok and this has no moral weight? We don't seem to be on the same page here.

Chapter 3.1, page 3-4: "If I buy a slave could I really do whatever I want with them!?"

Again, considering the possibility. Being tempted. Falling into temptation. But so far he only thinks of the possibility, not neccessarily making it a reality.

Suffice to say he went through with it. A person with integrity would be repulsed by the idea.

He has already accepted the fact that XXI century laws don't apply, so he is refocusing his moral compass to current law and customs. Everyone is free to apply or not personal morality. It's local morallity you will be judged upon.

If we follow your advice, if we go to certain countries we should stone women that got raped. Perfect logic, doesn't sound inhumane and evil at all. /s
Refer to my sentence about rape,torture and murder above.

Ehh ... Making an actual question ... Nothing more.

His question means that he's actually considering buying a human being as if it was livestock (and he goes through with it). And you see nothing wrong with that?

Half of a translation disaster, half of just bad expression. You can see the question more like "Have you ever evaluated a slave for purchase" (since that's what they are doint at this point)

I see no reason to believe it's a mistranslation or a misunderstanding. It reads perfectly fine in English and it fits with the dishonesty characteristic for the MC.

Why does this question out of all of them is the one that bothers you? If you are going to buy a product, you want to know how it value is measured, so you don't overpay for a feature you don't need. It's like asking "Does a GSM slot change a laptop's value?"

Because if you look at the context (go ahead and check the previous page and this one), you'll notice that the first thing he's worried about is not the morality or humanity of him buying a sex slave, it's the price... And your reply actually points out perfectly what's wrong with the whole situation. She's reduced to a "product", whose value you can "measure", and her virginity is a "feature". That's beyond inhumane.

Then considers whether it will or will not benefit Roxanne.

And this is where you're wrong. He considers whether it will benefit him. For him this means that he won't get to have sex with the slave he fancies. Make no mistake, there's no implied concern for her here. He even thinks: "am I ok with that?" and not "is she ok with that?/Will she be alright?". It's very clear what the issue is.

And then the part of the knight comes in as more or less of a joke, since it's completely unrelated.

There's no reason to believe it's a joke. And it's not unrelated either. He's seriously considering all the possible ways to satisfy his lust. One of those being buying a sex slave. He's considering this at that particular moment precisely because if the female knight would have sex with him, he may not need to shed money on a sex slave. The guy is thinking with his dick pretty much 24/7. He seriously considered the fact whether the female knight would sleep with him out of gratitude/admiration for him saving the village.

Up to this point he was waging his morals against his feelings.

No he wasn't, there wasn't much of an internal conflict. He's saying that, but we see that at the first opportunity he follows through with his plan. He's simply not being honest even with himself, to make himself feel better.

He is ok with murder. But that also has to do with the fact that the targets are bandits. Remember that you get a class based on your actions, and if you only steal or pickpocket you will get thief, not bandit. To get bandit you must commit violent crimes.

There, you said it - he's ok with murder, which is both inhumane and immoral. He's not in a position to judge anyone either. He doesn't even know the crimes of the people he killed in their sleep. Also can you refer in which page it is said that to get bandit you must commit violent crimes?

"I don't know what she thinks on the inside, but if she dislikes it, she's not showing it". So if she did show it, it would somehow matter?

It would matter in the sense that the slave trader told him she will let him have sex with her. But the whole thing looks more like a farce for him to rationalize groping her out of nowhere.
And it is not only that he doesn't know what she's thinking inside, it also doesn't seem to matter to him as long as she doesn't show it even if she's against it, since: "It is unfortunate, but I have no intention of letting you go.". He's basically admitting that he would have sex with her even if she's against it (basically rape her) as long as she doesn't show she's against it (because she's been taught to not show it).

Just before we read that sex slave or not, her value would be the same -> selling a non-sex slave as a sex slave should not be ripping off

Precisely, he simply wants an excuse to grope her. You may not have noticed, but it's a common theme that the MC is dishonest with himself, most likely because he doesn't want to believe that he's truly the monster that he is. He has the "decency" to try and delude himself that he's not as morally corrupt as he is, deep down he knows it's not true, but denial is an actual thing.

This is a sentimental moment for both of them. He has finally understood what he intends to do. So has she. The phrase has no further meaning than that: he intends to make use of the contract since he aknowledges that she is not against it.

You can label it as sentimental, I'll label it as horror. He's groping his victim while basically telling her that he'll have his way with her regardless of what she thinks or wants, only her tears are what's missing in the picture. It's the same as a rapist telling you he'll rape you and that there's nothing you could do about it while groping you. The only thing she's feeling is helplessness realizing that he's right. I don't get why you see it as a "sentimental" moment. It's a tragic and repulsing moment. Probably the only "comforting" thought, is that she's been conditioned her whole life that this would happen, so she has come to accept it. Doesn't make the whole situation any less repulsing, immoral and inhumane.
If I were to use his own words: "It is unfortunate" but the MC is human garbage. The only way he seems to be able to have a "relationship" is to brandish his authority and use it, to force his "partner" into complying. It's pathetic and sad. I do not understand why people praise this MC. What for? He's worse than the no-balls cuckold MCs by a few factors. Granted they are annoying as fuck, but he's simply evil and cowardly. And not the "cool" confident type of evil that is characteristic of anti-heroes: https://mangadex.org/manga/14827/aku-no-kyouten Our MC needs to be dishonest with himself about what he wants and what he is. Seems nobody taught him that "You can't have your cake and eat it too". There's no use trying to delude himself that he has integrity, he doesn't.

Yet he doesn't do it. The excuse he gives is that there are other things that he has to do first. Which turn out to be giving her better gear, letting her chose her own vestuary, then letting her clean herself and get used to his presence. Again, same as before, he is stating his capability of doing it, yet not making it a reality, That's what morality is about: judging whether is ther right thing to do an action or not.

So because he's not being savage it's about morality? Do you think that rape victims would feel better, if the rapists bought them some stuff beforehand (which they would use to work for him and wear while he rapes them)? Stating that you're ready to rape is about being moral?

You are right with this one. But again, at this poing and with the coundut she has shown and he has aknowledged she has shown, it's more teasing than anything else.

It's teasing? He told her he would wash her. He's her owner, she doesn't have the right to refuse. As far as he knows she has been specifically taught not to refuse any sexual advances, not because she's ok with those, but because that's what she was taught.

 

[littleoni]

@criver
The main mistake would be assuming, the word you hate so much, that the MC is being dishonest with himself. We have no other reason to believe that other than your conclussions. It's never pointed out in the story nor at any point he acts contrary to what he thinks (at least, there is always at least one interpretation in which he acts according to what he thinks).

About moral ignorance, I quoted a paper, so did you. Both of them are polar opposites, and I have always used the one I quoted for personal morals. Given we won't agree on this point, let's not use it.

1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others - kills people to earn money.
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations - what he does on numerous occasions is certainly illegal not only by Japan's laws, but also considering the laws of the world he's in. The only thing he's been thinking about this whole time was his own lust. He stops before nothing to satisfy it (be it murder, slavery, deceit or whatever you can think of).
3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them - He basically needs a slave to be able to have an enduring relationship, simply because she cannot walk away.
4. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment - He's getting there, the first time he murdered he needed a whole 5 minutes to forget about it.

1, ok
2, He never goes agains the law of the world he resides in knowingly. And feels regret the only time he does so unknowingly.
3, Not proven in any point in the story. He never tries to establish a relationship either, as far as we know.
4, Quite the opposite to reality: he does learn from experience, that's what allows him to adapt as quickly.

1]Ego-centrism; self-esteem derived from personal gain, power, or pleasure. - His whole character is based upon him being op and striving to satisfy his lust no matter the cost. Definitely checks out.
2]Goal-setting based on personal gratification; absence of prosocial internal standards associated with failure to conform to lawful or culturally normative ethical behavior. - Yup, kills people for money, which he needs to buy a sex slave.
3]Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another - Kills numerous people in cold blood for money. We also saw his idea of remorse in the first chapter.
4]Incapacity for mutually intimate relationships, as exploitation is a primary means of relating to others, including by deceit and coercion; use of dominance or intimidation to control others. - It's like this was specifically written for our MC. I am starting to wonder whether the author wasn't simply browsing through the APD article on wikipedia and picking traits from there for the MC.
5]Lack of concern for feelings or problems of others; lack of guilt or remorse about the negative or harmful effects of one's actions on others; aggression; sadism. - checks out.

1, Not proven by the story so far. All the contrary, after learning both the sword and his abilities are op, he hides them. He never flaunts them or does anything to suggest he going full egocentrical. Buying a sex slave has no importance to this point. (This point is placing his superior self ahead of others. He does not consider Roxanne owes him anything only because he is op, he owes him because she is his slave).
2, Yet does not break local law to do so. You can see his action as a good deed from a social standpoint. Applying a non humanistic moral code does not make one immoral. He is applying a civillian moral code instead.
3, Again, never confirmed by the story itself. Bandits don't count since they are already dead to society. If we use a civillian moral code, they deserved their fate and should consider that possibility before commiting crimes.
4, All the opposite. He asks Roxanne every time he intends to do something to her except that one time he gropes her. He literally does, go back to the chapter. He never shows possesivenes over her, except when he is pondering her purchase. Never uses intimidation (and gives her a weapon). And listens to her requests and acts accordingly. He is not being possesive or manipulative. He also literally exploits no one.
5, Not proven by the story so far. We have not seen him react to the problems of others except the time he went out of his way to save villagers and then sold one of them into slavery. So he did react to the problems of others and did empathize with them, but later he kinda didn't. He also ponders going to help the villager assaulted by the bandits (by saying he regrets her not being a prostitute, because she would have earned the treatment then), but then doesn't help and prefers to focus on his own objective. We don't have a time when he could have gone out of his way, but without putting himself in real danger, to help someone but didn't. We also don't have a definite time when he does go out of his way to help someone (except at the village, but I'm not counting that).

Makes perfect sense though. He's about to sell a slave, so he decided it was time to start thinking accordingly. Doesn't make it any less unethical and inhumane.

Out of context, that is. In context, the phrase is inconex, it leads nowhere. Why is it tiring? Why does it have to be? Shouldn't it be the other way around, it's tiring to flip the chip, since at that point the MC has still not fully adapted? It's just weird and doesn't sound good in context. I mean, if you consider it to be as such, does that mean that the MC has never considered others as equal and the current position forces him to and it's tiring?

He simply cannot differentiate between romance and lust. Also you don't seem to know what romanticism means ,it's definitely not lust.

One of the definitions of "Romance" given by the oxford dictionary is "A spirit of or inclination for adventure, excitement, or mystery". It's often used when referring to making one's fantasies come true. Here "a place of romance" can be seen as "a mysterious place where you can experience your wildest adventures". This is british english. But it also conforms to the original meaning of "Romanticism", which was an artistic movement which placed it's focus on the author's fantasies by making idealistic heroes living idealistic adventures, always involving a courting and love in the end. But "Don Quixote" is a satire of Romanticism, and there is not much emphasis in that part. Romance is not only love, and not all love is romance. In that meaning, romance would be the process of courting. Romance can also mean "affair", which is a merely carnal meaning, and it would also fit here. And also we don't know if the author used "Romance" here, or it's a flourish the translator makes. So let's not cling to a single word that is never again used in the entiertity of the work.

You can't change the sentence to fit your ideas. He didn't say it was easy, he specifically said that they were weak. It's the definition of arrogance (especially considering he achieved it just because of his op sword). And he murdered them to boot - no remorse whatsoever.

You are ripping out of context. He never before and never after reavels in the fact that he killed those bandits. The slaver says, in short, that if he has killed those banditshe should be strong enough to get the money through violent means if neccesary. To which the MC responds that they were just weak and so he is not all that strong. He is not fueling his self esteem by saying he was vastly supperior to them, they were just so weak that a weakling like him could take them down. Litteraly from there:

- He leapt into battle when the bandits attacked and saved our villate.
- He did do all that (translation disaster ... all what? ) ... by himself?
- Please, dont't exaggerate it so much. The bandits ...

He is literally telling that praising him is an exaggeration. It may be fake modesty, but it's not arrogance by any account.

So if the local law is to rape, kill, torture, you would be fine with that? I am sorry, but that is plain evil.

He doesn't know what the law is. So not to stand out, he tells them to apply the standart punishment. After seeing what is the standart punishment, he choses, again, not to stand out and go with it. He is very cautious (all along, you can see it in the fact that he doubts the knights, doubts whether he should be going for the bounties, doubts pretty much everything). He continually makes an effort of not standing out (by hiding his weapon, his classes, and trying to act as a local would). Also, everyone is free to apply or not personal moralty, so yeah, I would not by personal standarts but I would not point it out since my personal standarts don't apply. If you condemn a local law you are in for some deep trouble. He goes with self preservation first. You can't condemn that either. So in the end, he sells that guy to slavery a) according to local law b) not knowing what the law is c) assuming that by going against the law he will stand out. No evilness. Everything is morally justified.

He's thinking that one wrong makes two ok and this has no moral weight? We don't seem to be on the same page here.

He is considering the legality of an action. "If it's legal to sell a slave it's only logical to think it's legal to buy one". He's not even talking about himself at that point. I'm not quoting the whole page again, but context man. In the page he literally says he hadn't considered the possibility and that if he has sold one it's a given to think he can buy one. He is not evaluating the morality of such actions, but the legality.

Skipping the next point. It's an assumption on your part. A person with integrity is an hypotetical person we have no example of in the current story.

If we follow your advice, if we go to certain countries we should stone women that got raped. Perfect logic, doesn't sound inhumane and evil at all.
Refer to my sentence about rape,torture and murder above.

We should if we don't want to stand out. We could if we want to stone someone and consider it morally acceptable. That's what personal morality is for. If you intend to condemn someone based on personal morality, then you should analyze his actions and not his personal morality. In fact the MC does not trasgrede the umbral of XXI century civilized morals except when he goes for the murder. Both the selling and purchasing of the slaves can be seen as a different order of transactions: in one he applies lawful punishment to a criminal (more like he doesn't interfere with the law, which, by the way, would be illegal in XXI century civilized world), in the others he signs a contract to provide for a person for life (given that he never, as far as we have seen, goes against her will thus he never enacts his authority as a slave master).

His question means that he's actually considering buying a human being as if it was livestock (and he goes through with it). And you see nothing wrong with that?

Yes he is. And there is nothing wrong with the consideration. He considers it as in confirming his capability of doing so, and nothing more. He will then proceed to evaluate all variables, including the morality of the action and the will of Roxanne.

I see no reason to believe it's a mistranslation or a misunderstanding. It reads perfectly fine in English and it fits with the dishonesty characteristic for the MC.

Because the slaver, after having had another conversation in which the MC asked what benefits had owning a slave for an adventurer, obviously has to ask that question. From the trader's point of view the question is redundant and the answer is even more stupid. The conversation didn't have much to do with it before or after. I usually assume than if I read an individual bubble that makes no sense in the context there has been a translation mistake or misinterpretation. Given that the trader then proceeds to explain how to evaluate a slave, I'm inclined to think the question was related to the evaluation of the slaves.

And your reply actually points out perfectly what's wrong with the whole situation. She's reduced to a "product", whose value you can "measure", and her virginity is a "feature".

Damn sure it is. We are talking business there. Will the trader care about the morality? Will the trader's oppinion on the issue matter at all? If you come in a supermarket and start nagging the employees about the immorality of ussing excesive packaging or selling chinese made products, will anyone care? He has come to talk business to a businessman. Was he supposed to come in, say "It's immoral to buy or sell slaves" and leave, or something?

And this is where you're wrong. He considers whether it will benefit him. For him this means that he won't get to have sex with the slave he fancies. Make no mistake, there's no implied concern for her here. He even thinks: "am I ok with that?" and not "is she ok with that?/Will she be alright?". It's very clear what the issue is.

There is sure no direct mentioning of Roxanne's wellbeing here. Forfeiting the point.

There's no reason to believe it's a joke. And it's not unrelated either. He's seriously considering all the possible ways to satisfy his lust. One of those being buying a sex slave. He's considering this at that particular moment precisely because if the female knight would have sex with him, he may not need to shed money on a sex slave. The guy is thinking with his dick pretty much 24/7. He seriously considered the fact whether the female knight would sleep with him out of gratitude/admiration for him saving the village.

No proof of this in the story so far. Up to this point he doesn't actually consider ways to satisfy his lust. And even when he first meets the knight he only makes the comment that she is hot, but doesn't suggest in any way even wanting to bed her. And if you go back to the event with the knight, his main problem with her reaction is that she doesn't give a justification of why does the attack happen. You are reshaping his character to fit your idea. Stick to the facts.

No he wasn't, there wasn't much of an internal conflict. He's saying that, but we see that at the first opportunity he follows through with his plan. He's simply not being honest even with himself, to make himself feel better.

Assumption on your side. He spends half a chapter and two visits to the trader to make up his mind. Even after that, he questions Roxanne's will. Even after purchasing her he questions her will again. I see no self deception.

There, you said it - he's ok with murder, which is both inhumane and immoral. He's not in a position to judge anyone either. He doesn't even know the crimes of the people he killed in their sleep. Also can you refer in which page it is said that to get bandit you must commit violent crimes?

Not immoral by a civil moral code, for example. There is no direct refference in the manga, but we know for sure you won't get it from stealing. This is assumption on my part, and I also assume the MC knows the deffinition, just that the moment he got it was not shown on screen. So by my assumption, you have to do something that would label you as a bandit to become a "bandit". A bandit is a robberer that works with a gang (deffinition), and robbery is: "Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take anything of value by force, threat of force, or by putting the victim in fear", thus a violent crime.

But the whole thing looks more like a farce for him to rationalize groping her out of nowhere.
And it is not only that he doesn't know what she's thinking inside, it also doesn't seem to matter to him as long as she doesn't show it even if she's against it

He doesn't even grope her. He hugs her stomach, but that doesn't matter. Assuming farce is an assumption. There is no pointer to it being a farce. Also, literally in the bubble before he quesions whether her actions are her own will or her slave training, I don't see why are you assuming he doesn't care. In the end, he decides that if she doesn't show it it must be that she is not against it as he has no other way to judge it (orther than asking her directly, which he will do. 3 times at least)

You can label it as sentimental, I'll label it as horror. He's groping his victim while basically telling her that he'll have his way with her regardless of what she thinks or wants, only her tears are what's missing in the picture.

Assumption on your side. At which point does he imply he intends to force her? (Not letting her go, as in not releasing her? You can very technically read it as not letting her go so he has his way with her, but I see no reason to reiterate it at this point). In fact, I would like to see the raws for that one panel because the phrasing is weird as hell. Why is it unfortunate? Why should he let her go, has anyone suggested such thing? Maybe there is some other way to read that panel.

So because he's not being savage it's about morality? Do you think that rape victims would feel better, if the rapists bought them some stuff beforehand (which they would use to work for him and wear while he rapes them)? Stating that you're ready to rape is about being moral?

Let's remember that it's not him who suggest buying lingerie. And about rape victims and rapists ... I'll pass. It doesn't apply since the MC doesn't force her or oppose her will in the end. He also doesn't threaten her at any point.

It's teasing? He told her he would wash her. He's her owner, she doesn't have the right to refuse. As far as he knows she has been specifically taught not to refuse any sexual advances, not because she's ok with those, but because that's what she was taught.

He also asks her about pretty much anything he intends to do. He also doubts if her decisions are based on her own will or her training.

My main point would be that for your viewpoint to be right you would need at least one show of authority in a context where it can't benefit Roxanne (for example, forcing her to obey an order to leave him behind would not count).
In any other context you have to first assume the MC is a dick (that his moral dilemas come from self deception. That he sells the slave to get the money (by the way, he has no chance to interfere. He tells the chief to apply the law, and the next time he can ask anything the man is already a slave). That the occasions where he asks Roxanne's will are for self confirmation only and that the answers would not matter), and then his actions can be seen as immoral. While my conclusions come from basically no assumptions, only the info already known in the manga.

 

[criver]

@littleoni:

I am not assuming that the MC is being dishonest, there are numerous occasions where this happens, however you deem them all to be mistranslations. If you want to make sure that they really are mistranslations, you are free to contact the scanlators. So unless you verify that they are, you cannot use this as an argument, since it's based on your assumption that it is a mistranslations (at least imo there's no reason to believe that).

2. He goes against the law or at the very least against what he perceives to be the law. Check chapter 5.2, after he murders everyone, he wants to make sure that there's no investigation because he believes it will land him in trouble. He believes he is breaking the law and goes through with it nonetheless. If this is not enough: he has bandit and thief classes unlocked, if he could not magically swap the info on his card he would be jailed (meaning that he's been going against the law).
3. He does establish a sexual "relationship" with his slave. He buys a slave precisely because the slave literally cannot walk away from the relationship. A very strong indicator that he cannot maintain a relationship.
4. Notice the "or" - it means that only one of the two is enough. He definitely has issues with experiencing guilt (as seen from the first chapter).

1] Self-esteem doesn't necessarily equal bragging. He sees others as below him, that's why he doesn't bat an eye swindling them or deceiving them (with his cheat skills), killing them, selling them as slaves, or using them as slaves. He definitely acts as if he's above others, and this is derived precisely from the fact that he knows he can rely on durandal or his cheats as can be seen during the massacre, so definitely self-esteem derived from power. He is not only egocentric, he's borderline narcissistic if you consider his actions and behaviour.
2] "Yet does not break local law to do so." - As explained above, he does break the law. And if he didn't use cheats he would have a bounty on his head for that specific reason.
3] I don't think you read the same sentence as I did: "Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another" - this doesn't imply anything about law or morality. It's purely a humanistic definition. He lacks concern for the feelings, needs and suffering of the people he murdered. Also his remorse is MIA since chapter 1.
4] You probably missed the word "mutually". He bought a sex-slave, that he was guaranteed would let him do her regardless of her feelings or wants. This by definition is not mutual. "exploitation is a primary means of relating to others" - having sex with your sex-slave falls into this category. If you don't believe me, go and read the definition of sexual exploitation (not relating to minors, even if the MC falls into this category too), it's exactly what the MC is doing. "use of dominance or intimidation to control others." - she is his slave, how much more dominant can he get. He knows that she is not allowed to refuse his orders.
5] "except the time he went out of his way to save villagers and then sold one of them into slavery." - he didn't save the villagers out of concern for their feelings or problems. He went to kill the bandits since he believed it's just his game. On the other hand, we see him massacre people for money. He obviously lacks concern for their feelings and problems. The lack of guilt and remorse has been a reoccurring theme since the 1st chapter, when he needed a "whole" 5 minutes to get over a massacre.

Out of context, that is. In context, the phrase is inconex, it leads nowhere. Why is it tiring? Why does it have to be? Shouldn't it be the other way around, it's tiring to flip the chip, since at that point the MC has still not fully adapted? It's just weird and doesn't sound good in context. I mean, if you consider it to be as such, does that mean that the MC has never considered others as equal and the current position forces him to and it's tiring?

I don't get what you do not understand about the whole thing. This is definitely not a mistranslation, you can ask the TL if you don't believe me. I can't help you with this since I honestly don't get what you don't understand. The whole thing makes sense precisely because of the context, not in spite of it. It's precisely because he's about to sell a slave that his thought makes sense. It's basically him throwing away his old moral values. Obviously he's reevaluating those based on his current actions, he simply understand what he's doing and that it doesn't agree with his morals. So rather than redeem himself, he chooses to throw away his moral system. It says more than enough when you're ready to sell your principles for money.

I think I'll drop the case about romance. It is obvious that he means lust, considering the background on the same page (go check it out), so your whole explanation simply does not agree on the context. On the other hand, it's not probably not the best idea to judge him solely based on one "slip of the tongue". Maybe he can differentiate between lust and romance and simply slipped,

You are ripping out of context. He never before and never after reavels in the fact that he killed those bandits. The slaver says, in short, that if he has killed those banditshe should be strong enough to get the money through violent means if neccesary. To which the MC responds that they were just weak and so he is not all that strong. He is not fueling his self esteem by saying he was vastly supperior to them, they were just so weak that a weakling like him could take them down. Litteraly from there:

He has had no reason to reveal this (and he did get his bounty money, so he did reveal this previously).
Additionally the merchant does not say that he should be strong enough to get the money through violent means.
He only says: "He did do all that... by himself?"
He's simply astounded that the MC is that strong. It's pretty obvious that nobody goes around killing bands of bandits by himself. Here's what our MC replies (also note his hand gesture):
"The bandits were only small fries that were easily defeated in one stroke."
Maybe you're not familiar enough with English, but "small fry" is used in a derogatory sense here. Nowhere does he imply that he himself is a weakling. He is well aware that the merchant is impressed (which I am sure you will find in the LN/WN), so his "in one stroke" simply serves to brag on top of that. Not for a moment does the merchant believe that the bandits were weaklings (you can see his reaction in the next frame), which the MC is well aware of. It's pure arrogance mixed with callousness.

He did do all that (translation disaster ... all what? ) ... by himself?

Note that this is perfectly fine English and not a "translation disaster". "All that" refers to him killing the bandits and saving the village.

He is literally telling that praising him is an exaggeration. It may be fake modesty, but it's not arrogance by any account.

It is "fake modesty". And I explained above where the arrogance comes into play.

After seeing what is the standart punishment, he choses, again, not to stand out and go with it.

Let me get this straight - killing a band of bandits is not standing out, but reconsidering and being lenient is standing out? Great logic. Also the person who asks him what the punishment should be is visibly bothered by his decision, he obviously expected the MC to be lenient. Look at his face as he says "as you wish" (ch.2 page 16). So it's obviously not about standing out. It's about getting money and our MC becoming accustomed to the idea of slaves (he later uses this as a basis for buying a sex-slave).

He goes with self preservation first.

So it's about self-preservation? I guess that being reckless in the labyrinth is also self-preservation and killing off the sleeping bandits is also about self-preservation. I am sorry but I have to call bs on this. The MC knows that there are no consequences (except sacrificing his monetary gain) from being lenient with the thief, he could have reconsidered his decision. They ask him to be the judge, since he is the one wronged. He can easily say w/e. Consider the fact that it was mentioned that they will try to buy the slave back. It's basically the MC ripping off the family of the thief.

So in the end, he sells that guy to slavery a) according to local law b) not knowing what the law is c) assuming that by going against the law he will stand out. No evilness. Everything is morally justified.

I would argue that there is evilness in this, but I don't really care, you simply detracted from my original point. My original argument was that by selling the thief as a slave he's simply reinforcing the fact that he has a blatant disregard for other people.

He is not evaluating the morality of such actions, but the legality.

And that was exactly my point, seems you have understood it perfectly. For him it's not about morality, it's about legality - or rather it's about whether he can get away with it. Let me quote my original point:

Uses his unethical actions as a rationale for more of those. By this point it should be obvious that his moral compass is MIA.

Skipping the next point. It's an assumption on your part. A person with integrity is an hypotetical person we have no example of in the current story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrity
It's not hypothetical, it has a definition. And yes, I am aware that the MC has no integrity since his moral consistency is nonexistent. I am just making sure to emphasize that.

We should if we don't want to stand out. We could if we want to stone someone and consider it morally acceptable. That's what personal morality is for.

Doesn't make it any less inhumane and less evil. And that was my whole point. You can argue about how often you can change your principles and morals to fit a certain situation, it won't change anything in the end. It would just mean that you do not adhere to neither morals nor principles, since you can wave them goodbye at the drop of a hat.

he applies lawful punishment to a criminal

"Lawful". "Punishment". He's using the law to get money. It is lawful, but it is immoral and inhumane. The person turning him over considers it unwarranted (as can be seen by the expression he makes while saying "as you wish"), and everybody knows that the family would have to buy him back. The transgression of the thief was trying to steal a bandana that the MC later burned and didn't seem to care much about. Yup he's following the law alright, I am not arguing that he's going against the law in this case. I am arguing that what he's doing is despicable. I don't expect him to be Gandhi, but I expect a little humanity from this guy, especially considering he was supposedly brought up in the 21st century.

in the others he signs a contract to provide for a person for life (given that he never, as far as we have seen, goes against her will thus he never enacts his authority as a slave master).

Buying a slave has supposedly become "providing a person for life". This is gotta be a joke right? If you're serious, you need to review the definition of slave, it has nothing to do with what you wrote. He never goes against her will? He never asks her about what she wants except on about 3 occasions, where he knows that she is supposed to answer a specific way, since he was briefed by the slave trader about that just before.

Yes he is. And there is nothing wrong with the consideration. He considers it as in confirming his capability of doing so, and nothing more. He will then proceed to evaluate all variables, including the morality of the action and the will of Roxanne.

You didn't answer my question. You either see something wrong with buying people as livestock or you don't. Beating around the bush doesn't change anything. He also never proceeded to evaluate morality, he knew it was wrong, and went through with it.

Given that the trader then proceeds to explain how to evaluate a slave, I'm inclined to think the question was related to the evaluation of the slaves.

That's you assuming things. Ask the TL, problem solved. I am confident that it is not a mistranslation.

Damn sure it is. We are talking business there. Will the trader care about the morality? Will the trader's oppinion on the issue matter at all? If you come in a supermarket and start nagging the employees about the immorality of ussing excesive packaging or selling chinese made products, will anyone care? He has come to talk business to a businessman. Was he supposed to come in, say "It's immoral to buy or sell slaves" and leave, or something?

You missed the point. I am not saying that he should discuss morality with the trader in the first place, I am simply emphasizing the lows that the MC has reached.

No proof of this in the story so far. Up to this point he doesn't actually consider ways to satisfy his lust.[...]Stick to the facts.

These are the facts: "Even after saving a beautiful knight's village, I couldn't have my way with her." Also he did consider ways to satisfy his lust - the brothel.
And he is thinking about sex 24/7, since he saw Roxanne, that has been on his mind the whole time. If you don't agree with the manga, that's a different matter.

Assumption on your side. He spends half a chapter and two visits to the trader to make up his mind. Even after that, he questions Roxanne's will. Even after purchasing her he questions her will again. I see no self deception.

What is the assumption on my side. The fact that the internal conflict is basically nonexistent (which you can verify it is) or the fact that he goes through with the purchase (which he did)? He's purporting morals in his thoughts but there's no actual reflection of that. What does that tell you? That he's being honest with himself?

There is no direct referrence in the manga, but we know for sure you won't get it from stealing. This is assumption on my part

So it can't be a solid argument, sorry. It can be true for all that I know, however there's currently no good reason for me to believe that it is. Even if it assumed violent crimes, that certainly does not justify the MC delivering "justice" by murdering everybody in their sleep. Later on he even finds out some didn't even have a bounty. I don't know either in what kind of moral civil code murder for profit is the prescription to banditry, must be one of a kind.

Assuming farce is an assumption. There is no pointer to it being a farce.

You're not being consistent. You couldn't even get what was going on because of the MC's theatrics:

So if she did show it, it would somehow matter? And the part about being ripped off is not explained either. How was he thinking he got ripped off? That her value is lower? That she is not a sex slave? How would that matter by previous explanation? (Just before we read that sex slave or not, her value would be the same -> selling a non-sex slave as a sex slave should not be ripping off? You can do the same things with a sex slave and with a non-sex slave, again it would not be ripping off? It makes me think of translation disaster)

So even you realized this didn't make any sense, but now you argue that this is not a farce? Be consistent please.

Also, literally in the bubble before he questions whether her actions are her own will or her slave training, I don't see why are you assuming he doesn't care. In the end, he decides that if she doesn't show it it must be that she is not against it as he has no other way to judge it (other than asking her directly, which he will do. 3 times at least)

Why am I stating (not assuming) that he doesn't care? Maybe because of: "I want to confirm just how far she intends to let me go", or "It is unfortunate, but I have no intention of letting you go.", or maybe "Probably, it would be fine even if I pushed her down right here.", or "I will have her let me see them.", or his conversation with the trader where they went in great details over how she will act as if she's willing even if she's not. On the other hand, "he decides that if she doesn't show it it must be that she is not against it" is an assumption. It's not even consistent with the context, which you can find out from the quotes above.

At which point does he imply he intends to force her?

At this point: "Probably, it would be fine even if I pushed her down right here.". These are his thought on the next page, while he holds her. This clarifies the context of his words. It's unfortunate, but this is exactly what he means. Unless you plan to argue that his thoughts are disjointed and that we should take things out of context.

Maybe there is some other way to read that panel.

If only it were so.

Let's remember that it's not him who suggest buying lingerie. And about rape victims and rapists ... I'll pass. It doesn't apply since the MC doesn't force her or oppose her will in the end. He also doesn't threaten her at any point.

His "it's unfortunate" talk was pretty unambiguous to her, so she knows exactly what will happen later that night, so might as well get lingerie if nothing else. The MC doesn't force her simply because he doesn't have to, he made sure to check in with the trader that she won't act like "other" slaves who actually speak their mind. In no way can you say that he's not opposing her will, that's the exact thing he's pondering during his "it's unfortunate" moment.

He also doubts if her decisions are based on her own will or her training.

Sure. And then he makes it obvious beyond doubt that this is irrelevant anyways (refer to the quotes above), since his lust comes first. He bought a sex-slave for god's sake. He didn't buy her because he intended to play chess with her.

My main point would be that for your viewpoint to be right you would need at least one show of authority in a context where it can't benefit Roxanne (for example, forcing her to obey an order to leave him behind would not count).

Which he does: 1: He buys her (what better way to show authority than "I own you"), 2: "It is unfortunate, but I have no intention of letting you go.". Certainly he doesn't pin her down, but that is only because he doesn't have to. He makes it perfectly clear that he will if he needs to: "It would be fine even if I pushed her down right here", and the only reason he doesn't do this? "But there are other things I need to do. I'll hold back for now.". Notice that there is no consideration there about anything concerning his slave, he'll just "hold back for now". Once again - it's about him, not her - he's only concerned that she acts as if she's ok with it, if she's not - well fat chance "Here's Johnny!". Here's the kicker, he knows he bought a slave that will not speak out, they discussed that with the trader. He's being willfully ignorant to whether she's ok with the whole thing, most likely because it would ruin the experience to actually know that the one you're having sex with despises you.

In any other context you have to first assume the MC is a dick (that his moral dillemas come from self deception).

I am not assuming, his actions and thoughts talk for themselves. His actions are inconsistent with his thoughts regarding all moral matters - this is called being dishonest with oneself. He's trying though, I give the 5 min guilt trip after the massacre a 2/10.

That he sells the slave to get the money (by the way, he has no chance to interfere. He tells the chief to apply the law, and the next time he can ask anything the man is already a slave).

Oh but he has a chance to interfere. He could have easily freed the slave to redeem himself. Especially after seeing the expression on the chief's face. He's simply unwilling.

That the occasions where he asks Roxanne's will are for self confirmation only

Already discussed above.

While my conclusions come from basically no assumptions, only the info already known in the manga.

I don't feel like wasting my time doing this, but if you insist I can count the number of times you made assumptions not based on the manga. I am fairy certain I can pick at least 5 from your last reply, which is a fairly big percentage considering the number of points made.

 

[littleoni]

@criver
I will be out for about a week, so make this my last post. I will also try to keep it short.
The most important point I want to make is about the translations. You are reading a translated work. You are reading a fan translated work. You should expect there to be a lot lost in translation.
So firstly, the thing about the carriage. The bubble is there, but it's reading is the exact opposite of what you are making it to be. The translation says "It's tiring to think of others as equals". This doesn't make sense because the current situation is not forcing him to think of others as equal. Also it would imply he has not thought of others as equals before. This is an obvious mistake, it just doesn't have any understandable meaning in context, I don't even know what it's supposed to be saying. You are twisting it into meaning that the MC is adapting into thinking in terms of slavery ... Well, the narrative just proves you wrong, as the MC will ponder the idea of slavery for the first time later on (calling it self deception at this point would be ridiculous since it leads to nowhere if that were the case).
Same goes for the time when he is discussing with the trader. The trader is the one to make that question, but the question leads nowhere. If the translation was right, it would mean that the trader just wants to waste breath on a rhetorical question that the MC ends up answering with a lie anyway. This is just doesn't fit the narrative. The trader has not used useless words before, has not spun tales or spoken redundantly, why start there? Why start there and never again do it? If you consider it a translation mistake it fits the narrative: the trader asks about an important issue: has the MC evaluated a slave, does he know how to do it? The MC then answers honestly, he has not. Then the trader proceeds to explain how to do it. Your version leads to a needlessly badly written conversation, while assuming mistake leads to a decent one.
With the "it's unfortunate" again, you have to force a meaning to it for it to make sense your way. Let's remember the MC NEVER EVER EVER gives an order to Roxanne. I have re-read it and can confirm it. At most he makes suggestions that could be read as orders, but he never gives her an order in a literal sense. And this is very important to counter your points. This means he has no intention to enact his authority: he is not exploiting her, he is not being dominant over her. The fact that he asks her permission to do anything is another point for this. He knows she is not supposed to just oppose him, and he knows she will try to satisfy him even if she doesn't want to. This is why he goes out of his way and does this "it's unfortunate" scene trying to get her to act in a way she shows any discontent, to try to understand her. I infer this from the questions he makes before this: He questions her training, he questions whether she would show any discontent if she meant it, then she hugs her and says those cryptic words that lead nowhere. I don't think it's a misstranslation if you read it that way: he is trying to make her upset to get her to show discontent. He is probing her. Again, the fact that he says he could probably push her down just after has the opposite meaning that you are giving it: He could push her down, it would not be socially wrong, it would not go against what she would expect, etc. Yet he will hold back for now and do some other things unrelated, which end up in giving Roxanne an opportunity to express her will in some other ways: he gives her a weapon, he let's her choose some things to buy, he also observes how does she react around him, etc. I know I'm reading a lot into very little, but I'm reading it only based on what's actually written. To put it another way: we have no example of what you are suggesting happening, for your reading to be correct, things that have not happened would have to happen.
And about the rest, you have completely misunderstood the symptoms of psychopathy, and are reshaping them to the MC, or your reading of the MC.
Fake modesty is a cornerstone in modals. When someone praises you, it's only polite to dismiss it with fake modesty, you can't read it as arrogance. If the MC said something like "Yeah, they were no match for me" then it would be arrogance. By saying they were weak (at no point he refers to himself, he says they were weak as an absolute), he says he is only stronger than the weak. And he literally uses the word "exaggerate" to refer to it with the meaning that calling him strong is an exaggeration.
About what I call "translation disaster" there, only one action was described by the chief, there is no reason to say "all of that" since it implies more than one action. That's one of the best examples you could get of a mediocre translator.
I will not go point by point this time. I will just say that you are forcing a meaning to things they don't have. The characters are not independent beings, they are subordinate to the author and the narrative and they act accordingly. This author is very consistent with his narrative, there are little to no things that fall out of character and the characters feel unique in their descriptions. Also, in narrative things have a meaning. If the MC was keen on self deceiving, we would see consequences to it, serious contradictions with his personality, he would be more delusional. If he was arrogant, he would be arrogant: he would take on things superior to him, would not care about what other think about them, etc.
So you must read things in a way they fit the narrative, and not twist 3 bubbles out of context and try to make a point out of them.

 

[criver]

@littleoni:
I am also going on vacation, so I am not sure when I'll be able to provide a decent enough reply to that. I can only encourage you to actually address the points I made though, so I don't have to repeat them.

 

[tehelgee]

Honestly, the two of you need to move this to private messages and stop shitting up the comments section with an argument that will never end because you're both talking past one another.

 

[Ricardo_Rick]

@tehelgee: Thank you man, I created this account just to say that, I was already pissed at that discussion, it's a cartoon, PERIOD. thanks man

 

[AMetroid]

Personally I think the way to look at the situation in this story is to be closer to that of an arranged marriage. Yes I'm sure the same people who are having a fit about the 2 MCs' power dynamics would still be upset about such a thing, but I think it most closely matches the mind set of the 2 characters about their arrangement.

On all the bitching and moaning, I always get a kick out of the people who like to complain about slavery and rape in stories. It amuses me that they don't realize what they're doing to extol their "moral virtue", is the same as a white supremacist pointing out lower black IQ scores to extol their "superiority". Pointing out the fact of the first thing doesn't lead to the second. It just annoys everyone everyone else.
If you want to feel morally superior to the people of the past (or fictional culture) because you grew up in a more advance culture. Just realize, it's as stupid and the explorers feeling superior to the Africans or Native Americans because they came from a more technologically superior country. You just inherited it, doing nothing to advance it, same as those past explorers. If you were born into those norms you'd hold them too.

Anyway I'm looking forward to how our characters work in a party together.

 

[Thunderlord2300]

i wish there would be more trans. or posted.. raw is 5 months old dono why..

 

[ItaKiba]

I think if I was put into this world and put into a situation like him, I'd probably have done the same thing (level in the lab for a long while).

 

[notFinch]

They xxx without confirming mutual consent and because she's his slave so it feel a bit forced. But she doesn't seem to hate the idea ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) so it's not entirely rape, it's end up in a gray area which could easily be avoided with 2 dialog bubble.

 

[LysandersTreason]

@notfinch It's not rape. She wanted him to be her master. In this manga, no one can become a sex slave without consenting to it. Refusing to be a sex slave and then being sexually assaulted would void the slave contract. Being a sex slave made her value go way higher. (like 120,000 nar vs 450,000 nar). At least half the money from purchasing a slave goes to the slave's family, so there's an incentive to be seen as a valuable slave. If she willingly sold herself into sex slavery, her family would get that entire amount (minus a commission fee, I assume).

 

[kronix]

@notFinch I am sorry but did I miss the chat bubbles where the waifu number one screams "NO PLZ STOP DONT RAPE ME PLZ PLZ STOP OH NO *CRIES* PLZ STOP... I DONT LIKE THIS" I am pretty sure she was enjoying the shit out of it?

@m3ch_mania are you guys going to continue translating this one?

 

[c4on]

Guys, if you complain about something don't choose a relationship of two ppl that obviously like each other. Choose those UGLY AF hats those two wear in the labyrinth lol.

 

[Kaarme]

@notFinch He asked her twice. Before touching her chest and before entering. However, since she's his slave, it doesn't matter particularly much. The gap between their positions is even larger than that of a lord and a maid centuries ago, making it difficult for her to refuse anything. Since he actually values her a lot, in time she would learn the limits, naturally, but they had only been together for a day. She wouldn't know how much he likes her and thus how much she could refuse before angering/disappointing him, and whether that would lead to anything adverse.

 

[HYBRID_BEING]

@Kaarme
I think notFinch probably meant something along the lines of "You can refuse, if you don't want to. - No, it's okay". Handwave, yes, but would have established consent.

@LysandersTreason

In this manga, no one can become a sex slave without consenting to it. Refusing to be a sex slave and then being sexually assaulted would void the slave contract. Being a sex slave made her value go way higher. (like 120,000 nar vs 450,000 nar).

Wait, didn't merchant said the opposite in chapter 4 about the price (although i didn't quite understood the logic about duties being "essentially the same")? And about consent - also kinda contradicted by what merchant said about slaves sometimes trying to trick young masters into believing they can't have sex - no point in that if they could just refuse.

I wonder if Champion Scans are planning to continue with this.

 

[Kaarme]

@HYBRID_BEING Even if there is some law or rule, does it actually matter so much in practice? If we strictly stared at laws, this whole Mangadex wouldn't exist, for example. Laws are what they are, enforcing them is a totally different thing. In the first place slaves are typically owned by wealthier people (Roxanne's price wasn't something a random joe from the streets could have easily afforded). Still today wealthy people are more equal in front of the law than poor people of little influence pretty much everywhere in the world, and not only because they can afford skilled lawyers.

 

[HYBRID_BEING]

@Kaarme
Well, i have nothing against this manga as is, and certainly do not plan to apply any real laws to it. But wouldn't have minded that little handwave.