Tensei Kizoku no Isekai Boukenroku: Jichou o Shiranai Kamigami no Shito - Vol. 11 Ch. 55

[zarian2]

Cain-Amazon to Bro-kun: Your new wife will be delivered by 8pm today. Thanks for choosing Cainazon!

 

[flannan]

Who is he? it has been so long that I've been forgetting everything

The little guy with silver hair is MC, the reincarnated guy whom gods are powering up to the max so that he can fight an evil god. He once summoned the Demon King, and the Demon King agreed to work with him as his summon. Drintor is the town he got as a reward for his work for the kingdom.
The butler is a retired butler of the Demon King, who specializes in summoning insects (mostly for spy work).
The guy who appears in the end, is MC's brother, whom MC hired as Drintor's manager.
All the other characters (adventurers, noble girl) are introduced in this chapter for the first time.

Didn’t know this is getting an anime

This already has an anime. It aired this spring. https://anidb.net/anime/17552

Excuse me. . I thought we have a main plot where an evil god going to revive or something, he even trained for it for years in the realm of god. Where that plot go?

It is going to take a while. Probably because evil god is split into pieces, and MC will have to somehow locate and destroy all of them. And the only hint for finding them, is that the places with evil god in them will have extraordinary amount of evil and trouble (like Drintor before MC took over it, I guess).

 

[flannan]

I suggest you do more than just quote one part of one version of a law. In most places in the world, charging someone for assault by a deadly weapon without any contact usually has to include a verbal or otherwise relayed threat of using said weapon.

The reason is that threats are actually taken more seriously than actual bodily harm from a certain point of view. Bodily harm could have been unintended or unplanned, meanwhile a threat is a deliberate attack already made on the psyche of another, and can have long term consequences.

Drawing a weapon and waving it around is too general to be considered a direct threat against another person. The person might be charged instead for drawing the weapon, if it's illegal in that jurisdiction to brandish a specific weapon or something that could be taken to be a weapon. But it wouldn't fall under assault.

One of them said he'd break the other guy's hand, but neither said something like "I'll cut you" or "I'll kill you". That's also being generous and applying modern laws to what is a medieval frontier city...as many have pointed out. In those days, did you think town watchmen or guards had such laws to enforce? They'd only intervene if a fight really broke out, and it would be for fighting, not drawing a weapon. Or a proactive guard might stop them and haul them in before they fought, but again it wouldn't be because of some law.

In many similar stories, Adventurers' Guild has a strict policy against drawing weapons in the guild hall. Because the place is full of dangerous people (adventurers), who should not be provoked.

 

[Latomz]

Wtf so Alec x Letia ship already sunk?

 

[0Zion]

4 months felt like a year! Good to see an update. Thank you for the translation!

 

[Amariithynar]

I suggest you do more than just quote one part of one version of a law. In most places in the world, charging someone for assault by a deadly weapon without any contact usually has to include a verbal or otherwise relayed threat of using said weapon.

The reason is that threats are actually taken more seriously than actual bodily harm from a certain point of view. Bodily harm could have been unintended or unplanned, meanwhile a threat is a deliberate attack already made on the psyche of another, and can have long term consequences.

Drawing a weapon and waving it around is too general to be considered a direct threat against another person. The person might be charged instead for drawing the weapon, if it's illegal in that jurisdiction to brandish a specific weapon or something that could be taken to be a weapon. But it wouldn't fall under assault.

One of them said he'd break the other guy's hand, but neither said something like "I'll cut you" or "I'll kill you". That's also being generous and applying modern laws to what is a medieval frontier city...as many have pointed out. In those days, did you think town watchmen or guards had such laws to enforce? They'd only intervene if a fight really broke out, and it would be for fighting, not drawing a weapon. Or a proactive guard might stop them and haul them in before they fought, but again it wouldn't be because of some law.

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/memorials-london-life/pp270-273

Proclamation for keeping the peace within the City.

27 Edward III. A.D. 1353. Letter-Book G. fol. x. (Norman French.)

"It is ordered that every hosteler and herbergeour, within the franchise of the City, shall cause his guests to be warned that they must leave their arms and armour in their hostels where they are lodging, in the keeping there of their hosts; and if such hosts do not give such warning, and any one shall be found bearing arms or in armour, for default of such warning, the host of such person shall be punished by imprisonment and other penalty, at the discretion of the Mayor and Aldermen.

"Also,—that no alien shall go in armour, or shall carry sword, knife with point, or other arms, in the City, or in the suburb thereof; on pain of imprisonment, and of losing such arms and armour."

"Also,—that every person of the peace shall come in aid of the officers of the City, if need be, to arrest felons and other misdoers, and such as shall be found contravening the cry aforesaid. And in the absence of the officers, every man of the peace shall have power to arrest such persons, and to bring them to the houses of the Sheriffs, that so due punishment may be inflicted upon them.

"Also,—that no one shall give maintenance, succour, prayer, or aid, to any person who is of bad covin or alliance, or accused of evil, on pain of forfeiting as much as he may forfeit, unto our Lord the King, and to the City.

"Also,—that no one shall hold an assemblage, within the City or without, for making covin, confederacy, or alliance; nor yet shall make any collection of money in boxes, or in other manner, for the maintenance of his quarrels, or for exciting evil riots, on pain of imprisonment and of forfeiture, as before stated."

~

Medieval-era laws were more strict, not less, than modern laws. And, as I noted, "the concept is differently worded depending on state or federal code of law and by country, of course, but the general principles hold true". every country has laws against assault, even if worded differently. Here are some examples:

~

India: "Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."

Mainland China, Article 14: "An intentional crime refers to an act committed by a person who clearly knows
that his act will entail harmful consequences to society but who wishes or allows such consequences to occur, thus constituting a crime." Article 294 also addresses threats and acts of violence more specifically, but it is written more towards those who do so in the form of organized crime, eg. tongs and triads and mafias and similar, so I won't cite it, but it's still relevant to note (and might very well be applied against a single individual as well, as their draconian laws are often interpreted to be the most restrictive possible to those acting against the State's desires).

Taiwanese China, Article 151: "A person who endangers public safety by putting the public in fear of injury to life, body, or property shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years." and,
Article 152: "A person who by violence, threats, or fraud interferes with or disturbs a lawful assembly shall punish with imprisonment for not less than two years."

Russia, Article 119. Threat of Murder or Infliction of Grave Injury to Health:
"Threat of murder or infliction of grave injury to health, if there were grounds to fear the realization of this threat,
shall be punishable by obligatory labour for a term of up to 480 hours, or by restrain of liberty for a term of up to two years, or by compulsory labour for a term of up two years, or by arrest for a term of up to six months, or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to two years."

France's Article R623-1:
"Except in the cases provided for by articles 222-17 and 222-18 , the threat of committing violence against a person, when this threat is either reiterated or materialized by a writing, an image or any other object, is punishable by fine provided for 3rd class infractions."
Article 222-17:
"The threat of committing a crime or misdemeanor against persons whose attempt is punishable is punishable by six months' imprisonment and a fine of 7,500 euros when it is either repeated or materialized in writing, an image or any other object. The penalty is increased to three years' imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros if it involves a death threat."
Article 222-18:
"The threat, by any means whatsoever, to commit a crime or misdemeanor against persons, is punishable by three years of imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros, when it is made with the order to complete a condition. The penalty is increased to five years of imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros if it involves a death threat."

~

These are just a few examples, since apparently y'all need explicit examples instead of generally addressing the topic with a statement such as, "the concept is differently worded depending on state or federal code of law and by country, of course, but the general principles hold true" (and yes, I'm quoting it twice in this post because y'all ignored it the first time, too).

Page 22, after threats of bodily harm are made, Cain indicates he will need to step in and stop them as Lixets isn't there to act as enforcer. Page 23, both thugs have weapons ready to draw in panel, and have weapons out when Cross stepped in, along with Lagett, who disarmed them of their naked blades, as shown a couple panels later. He then allowed them to go off, disarmed, to work things out on their own regarding skill in the issue they were arguing over (re: the quest), instead of dealing with it legally, which was also often enough done in history in minor altercations, because that would be a lot of annoyance to deal with for a confrontation that was not (as far as he could tell) witnessed by anyone with any political power, either personal or through the mantle of their work (eg. a city guard; at this point they still were unaware that Cain is the Count, so is most likely how it would play out in reality as well); furthermore, the confrontation did not result in any lasting physical harm, so is much more easily hidden if inquiry is made by such.

 

[johnpoop2529]

aw man, his brother gets a lover? well sadly guess i have to drop this now. i only like seeing the mc get lovers. yes its a degenerate taste but i cant help it, no one more than me wishes i had a different mindset

 

[DLRevan]

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/memorials-london-life/pp270-273

Proclamation for keeping the peace within the City.

27 Edward III. A.D. 1353. Letter-Book G. fol. x. (Norman French.)

"It is ordered that every hosteler and herbergeour, within the franchise of the City, shall cause his guests to be warned that they must leave their arms and armour in their hostels where they are lodging, in the keeping there of their hosts; and if such hosts do not give such warning, and any one shall be found bearing arms or in armour, for default of such warning, the host of such person shall be punished by imprisonment and other penalty, at the discretion of the Mayor and Aldermen.

"Also,—that no alien shall go in armour, or shall carry sword, knife with point, or other arms, in the City, or in the suburb thereof; on pain of imprisonment, and of losing such arms and armour."

"Also,—that every person of the peace shall come in aid of the officers of the City, if need be, to arrest felons and other misdoers, and such as shall be found contravening the cry aforesaid. And in the absence of the officers, every man of the peace shall have power to arrest such persons, and to bring them to the houses of the Sheriffs, that so due punishment may be inflicted upon them.

"Also,—that no one shall give maintenance, succour, prayer, or aid, to any person who is of bad covin or alliance, or accused of evil, on pain of forfeiting as much as he may forfeit, unto our Lord the King, and to the City.

"Also,—that no one shall hold an assemblage, within the City or without, for making covin, confederacy, or alliance; nor yet shall make any collection of money in boxes, or in other manner, for the maintenance of his quarrels, or for exciting evil riots, on pain of imprisonment and of forfeiture, as before stated."

~

Medieval-era laws were more strict, not less, than modern laws. And, as I noted, "the concept is differently worded depending on state or federal code of law and by country, of course, but the general principles hold true". every country has laws against assault, even if worded differently. Here are some examples:

~

India: "Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."

Mainland China, Article 14: "An intentional crime refers to an act committed by a person who clearly knows
that his act will entail harmful consequences to society but who wishes or allows such consequences to occur, thus constituting a crime." Article 294 also addresses threats and acts of violence more specifically, but it is written more towards those who do so in the form of organized crime, eg. tongs and triads and mafias and similar, so I won't cite it, but it's still relevant to note (and might very well be applied against a single individual as well, as their draconian laws are often interpreted to be the most restrictive possible to those acting against the State's desires).

Taiwanese China, Article 151: "A person who endangers public safety by putting the public in fear of injury to life, body, or property shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years." and,
Article 152: "A person who by violence, threats, or fraud interferes with or disturbs a lawful assembly shall punish with imprisonment for not less than two years."

Russia, Article 119. Threat of Murder or Infliction of Grave Injury to Health:
"Threat of murder or infliction of grave injury to health, if there were grounds to fear the realization of this threat,
shall be punishable by obligatory labour for a term of up to 480 hours, or by restrain of liberty for a term of up to two years, or by compulsory labour for a term of up two years, or by arrest for a term of up to six months, or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to two years."

France's Article R623-1:
"Except in the cases provided for by articles 222-17 and 222-18 , the threat of committing violence against a person, when this threat is either reiterated or materialized by a writing, an image or any other object, is punishable by fine provided for 3rd class infractions."
Article 222-17:
"The threat of committing a crime or misdemeanor against persons whose attempt is punishable is punishable by six months' imprisonment and a fine of 7,500 euros when it is either repeated or materialized in writing, an image or any other object. The penalty is increased to three years' imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros if it involves a death threat."
Article 222-18:
"The threat, by any means whatsoever, to commit a crime or misdemeanor against persons, is punishable by three years of imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros, when it is made with the order to complete a condition. The penalty is increased to five years of imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros if it involves a death threat."

~

These are just a few examples, since apparently y'all need explicit examples instead of generally addressing the topic with a statement such as, "the concept is differently worded depending on state or federal code of law and by country, of course, but the general principles hold true" (and yes, I'm quoting it twice in this post because y'all ignored it the first time, too).

Page 22, after threats of bodily harm are made, Cain indicates he will need to step in and stop them as Lixets isn't there to act as enforcer. Page 23, both thugs have weapons ready to draw in panel, and have weapons out when Cross stepped in, along with Lagett, who disarmed them of their naked blades, as shown a couple panels later. He then allowed them to go off, disarmed, to work things out on their own regarding skill in the issue they were arguing over (re: the quest), instead of dealing with it legally, which was also often enough done in history in minor altercations, because that would be a lot of annoyance to deal with for a confrontation that was not (as far as he could tell) witnessed by anyone with any political power, either personal or through the mantle of their work (eg. a city guard; at this point they still were unaware that Cain is the Count, so is most likely how it would play out in reality as well); furthermore, the confrontation did not result in any lasting physical harm, so is much more easily hidden if inquiry is made by such.

Like I said, you need to do more than quote versions of law. All of what you have said does not do more than prove such laws existed in some places and eras, and does not deal with how they are enforced or interpreted.

"Carry" laws are not universal. Not every city, town or nation had common law regarding whether a weapon could be taken out of place of residence or displayed externally on their person. JUST LIKE TODAY.

And use some common sense. A guild hall of this context is mostly fictional. But city laws regarding carrying and use of weapons would likely be relaxed or non-existent for a place where armed individuals frequently traffic through quickly, picking up or dropping off job requests. At most there would be a weapon hold at the door, but that's on the establishment, not the law. Furthermore, laws dealing with mercenaries, or simply men-under-arms, which would be the most applicable, relaxed conditions for the carrying and use of weapons within city limits, assuming they didn't ban them from entering altogether.

Also just like today, pulling a knife in a jurisdiction which allows external carry of weapons doesn't usually result in anything more than a misdemeanor at most. It is not usually considered a threat to commit assault. Brandishing the weapon, and stating that one would use it? That's another matter. That did not happen in this scene.

You read the laws you quoted but you don't understand them. You don't understand why they're drawn up that way (and have been for centuries). You don't understand what is the "textbook" definition of threat of assault.

You don't understand when law enforcement applies some leeway or common sense in their enforcement. You seem to imply that it would be handled differently if someone with authority sees the incident. It shouldn't make any difference unless said person wanted to flex authority.

And after all that, I don't get what you're driving at anyway? Are you trying to somehow make a point that the act was still criminal even if it would never have been charged as such? At that point it sounds like you've quoted all these laws just to be contrarian for the sake of it. It's literally a non-issue.

 

[kaezeribato]

Absolute monarchies are safe from reprisal from the commoners

Louis XVI would like a word.

 

[kaezeribato]

...

It feel like you love saying nonesense in every medieval manga's comments, and each time someone prove you wrong you still keep acting as if you were right...
So much for someone pretending to be educated.

 

[kaezeribato]

Even a king cant simply kill of their nobles without a really good reason or evidence.

He tried to harm the direct envoy of the gods, that's the death sentence directly in the street without jugement.

 

[Dragou]

He tried to harm the direct envoy of the gods, that's the death sentence directly in the street without jugement.

Which he cant/wont simply announce. Which let this reason go vanish right on the spot.

 

[HyoEden]

What's going on indeed, I don't remember anything.

 

[misconstrued198]

I love the shenanigans he gets up to with the whole Adventurer/Lord thing he does.

 

[SalvySaroj]

There still people that actually don't know mc!?😅

 

[SalvySaroj]

It's releasing so d*mn fast that, i don't even know which character is who and where from except harem and some few of course

 

[welcome2atlantis]

Oya oya, what's this, a matchmaking? 🥴

 

[venerablemonster]

Finally catching up on this, but damn is this the laziest shitiest writer I've stumbled on in a minute.

 

[Seraphus]

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/memorials-london-life/pp270-273

Proclamation for keeping the peace within the City.

27 Edward III. A.D. 1353. Letter-Book G. fol. x. (Norman French.)

"It is ordered that every hosteler and herbergeour, within the franchise of the City, shall cause his guests to be warned that they must leave their arms and armour in their hostels where they are lodging, in the keeping there of their hosts; and if such hosts do not give such warning, and any one shall be found bearing arms or in armour, for default of such warning, the host of such person shall be punished by imprisonment and other penalty, at the discretion of the Mayor and Aldermen.

"Also,—that no alien shall go in armour, or shall carry sword, knife with point, or other arms, in the City, or in the suburb thereof; on pain of imprisonment, and of losing such arms and armour."

"Also,—that every person of the peace shall come in aid of the officers of the City, if need be, to arrest felons and other misdoers, and such as shall be found contravening the cry aforesaid. And in the absence of the officers, every man of the peace shall have power to arrest such persons, and to bring them to the houses of the Sheriffs, that so due punishment may be inflicted upon them.

"Also,—that no one shall give maintenance, succour, prayer, or aid, to any person who is of bad covin or alliance, or accused of evil, on pain of forfeiting as much as he may forfeit, unto our Lord the King, and to the City.

"Also,—that no one shall hold an assemblage, within the City or without, for making covin, confederacy, or alliance; nor yet shall make any collection of money in boxes, or in other manner, for the maintenance of his quarrels, or for exciting evil riots, on pain of imprisonment and of forfeiture, as before stated."

~

Medieval-era laws were more strict, not less, than modern laws. And, as I noted, "the concept is differently worded depending on state or federal code of law and by country, of course, but the general principles hold true". every country has laws against assault, even if worded differently. Here are some examples:

~

India: "Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."

Mainland China, Article 14: "An intentional crime refers to an act committed by a person who clearly knows
that his act will entail harmful consequences to society but who wishes or allows such consequences to occur, thus constituting a crime." Article 294 also addresses threats and acts of violence more specifically, but it is written more towards those who do so in the form of organized crime, eg. tongs and triads and mafias and similar, so I won't cite it, but it's still relevant to note (and might very well be applied against a single individual as well, as their draconian laws are often interpreted to be the most restrictive possible to those acting against the State's desires).

Taiwanese China, Article 151: "A person who endangers public safety by putting the public in fear of injury to life, body, or property shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than two years." and,
Article 152: "A person who by violence, threats, or fraud interferes with or disturbs a lawful assembly shall punish with imprisonment for not less than two years."

Russia, Article 119. Threat of Murder or Infliction of Grave Injury to Health:
"Threat of murder or infliction of grave injury to health, if there were grounds to fear the realization of this threat,
shall be punishable by obligatory labour for a term of up to 480 hours, or by restrain of liberty for a term of up to two years, or by compulsory labour for a term of up two years, or by arrest for a term of up to six months, or by deprivation of liberty for a term of up to two years."

France's Article R623-1:
"Except in the cases provided for by articles 222-17 and 222-18 , the threat of committing violence against a person, when this threat is either reiterated or materialized by a writing, an image or any other object, is punishable by fine provided for 3rd class infractions."
Article 222-17:
"The threat of committing a crime or misdemeanor against persons whose attempt is punishable is punishable by six months' imprisonment and a fine of 7,500 euros when it is either repeated or materialized in writing, an image or any other object. The penalty is increased to three years' imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros if it involves a death threat."
Article 222-18:
"The threat, by any means whatsoever, to commit a crime or misdemeanor against persons, is punishable by three years of imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros, when it is made with the order to complete a condition. The penalty is increased to five years of imprisonment and a fine of 75,000 euros if it involves a death threat."

~

These are just a few examples, since apparently y'all need explicit examples instead of generally addressing the topic with a statement such as, "the concept is differently worded depending on state or federal code of law and by country, of course, but the general principles hold true" (and yes, I'm quoting it twice in this post because y'all ignored it the first time, too).

Page 22, after threats of bodily harm are made, Cain indicates he will need to step in and stop them as Lixets isn't there to act as enforcer. Page 23, both thugs have weapons ready to draw in panel, and have weapons out when Cross stepped in, along with Lagett, who disarmed them of their naked blades, as shown a couple panels later. He then allowed them to go off, disarmed, to work things out on their own regarding skill in the issue they were arguing over (re: the quest), instead of dealing with it legally, which was also often enough done in history in minor altercations, because that would be a lot of annoyance to deal with for a confrontation that was not (as far as he could tell) witnessed by anyone with any political power, either personal or through the mantle of their work (eg. a city guard; at this point they still were unaware that Cain is the Count, so is most likely how it would play out in reality as well); furthermore, the confrontation did not result in any lasting physical harm, so is much more easily hidden if inquiry is made by such.

I absolutely love everything about this post, lol...

Well, except the idiot dipshits with low reading comprehension... but they didn't want facts, they are just intellectual infants who scream any time mommy says they're "wrong" about anything.

You're arguing with mental children... but... honestly, it's kinda funny, and it's absolutely a style that I love to see!

 

[Amariithynar]

I absolutely love everything about this post, lol...

Well, except the idiot dipshits with low reading comprehension... but they didn't want facts, they are just intellectual infants who scream any time mommy says they're "wrong" about anything.

You're arguing with mental children... but... honestly, it's kinda funny, and it's absolutely a style that I love to see!

Happens every so often, sadly. The worst part is when I actually go and cite a bunch of sources and then get told off because they, "ain't gonna read all that", then just proceed to spew yet more dumb shit, often which was directly addressed in the post they refuse to read.