Tensei Kizoku no Isekai Boukenroku ~Jichou wo Shiranai Kamigami no Shito~ - Ch. 53.2

[SupBroZX]

I hope MC learned his lesson.

 

[lordb1]

My suggestion is to just let the demon butler drag them to hell and then tell no one.

 

[dextersTomato]

PROTECC THE LOLI!!!

 

[Bool]

Thanks for the chapter TOWL enjoyers.

 

[TheDragonLord]

Next time don't break their arms, break their necks instead MC.

Bad villain! Whack!

 

[TheDragonLord]

PROTECC THE LOLI!!!

But, which Loli? Should we protect them all? 😜

 

[TheDragonLord]

I got confused and thought Cain just left the other kids in cages and left on the carriages and was like WTF

I agree. Dude is an effective demigod. Didn't even bother casting shield & invisibility spells in everyone with a finger snap? And what about the other kids who have been sold? The ledgers? What about sending the villains to Hell to have Dami give them some extra special TLC?

I LOVE this series, yet Cain not saving everyone nor teleporting everyone out is kinda sketch. Like, he breaks the "don't over share your specs" rule ALL THE DAMN TIME—hence, his near constant bombardment of scolding from the king. But, what about the other kids?

I wonder if in the light novel, Cain casts invisible protection magic that enables him to catch the big pudgy bad who is about to get stomped?

 

[CinderSquall]

I agree. Dude is an effective demigod. Didn't even bother casting shield & invisibility spells in everyone with a finger snap? And what about the other kids who have been sold? The ledgers? What about sending the villains to Hell to have Dami give them some extra special TLC?

I LOVE this series, yet Cain not saving everyone nor teleporting everyone out is kinda sketch. Like, he breaks the "don't over share your specs" rule ALL THE DAMN TIME—hence, his near constant bombardment of scolding from the king. But, what about the other kids?

I wonder if in the light novel, Cain casts invisible protection magic that enables him to catch the big pudgy bad who is about to get stomped?

Someone already mentioned it but Parma is the only one Cain actually knows and can actually calm down easily, keeping the others on their cell in the meantime is "much safer" than to risk them getting stressed over what the strangers(Cain's group) is going to do with them. Cain can also just actively puts everyone to sleep to avoid them getting stressed but that would look more sus than him leaving them there in the meantime.

 

[TheDragonLord]

Someone already mentioned it but Parma is the only one Cain actually knows and can actually calm down easily, keeping the others on their cell in the meantime is "much safer" than to risk them getting stressed over what the strangers(Cain's group) is going to do with them. Cain can also just actively puts everyone to sleep to avoid them getting stressed but that would look more sus than him leaving them there in the meantime.

I agree. I just would have liked to have actually seen that. Hopefully, this gets an anime adaptation of MORE DAMN SEASONS! 😭😭😭😭😭❤️💯 and with that, more fleshed out nuance here.

I agree that Cain has that ability and the other kids might get scared at some random kid rescuing them, though, I suspect that him rescuing Parma by itself would put them at ease—like, their fellow captee being all—"CAIN IS MY HERO AND HERE TO SAVE US!" might do some good. But, I also respect that Parma is likely a wee bit traumatized here. My concern is that unless he's developed the ability to raise the dead, what's he going to do if during his fight, since he left the other kids alone, what happens if someone decides to " clean up the evidence by murding the kids and burning the building? Oh, yeah—he definitely could do something about it, but not teleporting them to safety or anything like that is strange. He could have ported the whole lot to his mansion and returned to "sort out the baddies" in mere seconds.

Message to house staff—" take care of this kiddos. They were kidnapped by x. Call wife, captain of the knights!" Like, he's got countless options and has shown that wisdom again and again, so here it seems rather peculiar that he isn't utilizing that wisdom and is acting rather callous and impulsive.

Yes, I agree that he could have put them all to sleep or shielded them, or something. It's just we don't see it. Without seeing it, though, from a writing standpoint, it feels rather un-Cain like. I mean, this is the dude who ran into save the princess & Duke's daughter without knowing who they were, and saved all those he could, while carrying the bodies of the others in storage for burial. That kind of selflessness doesn't seem like the angry kid who suddenly chooses to put the life of Parma ahead of all those other kids. It just feels really weird. Cain striked me as someone who would do both. Like, call up his loyal demon lord minion to watch them/free them, or something. Pop over to grab wife no. 3 and have her assist, or any of other possibilities.

I'll have to wait to see what happens, but I hope this gets resolved and we don't see kids getting lost.

Like, is he even going to bother rescuing all of the kids likely to have already been sold into slavery? Or, is he not going to do something about that?

As you can see, this shift makes me wonder if we're about to see the start of a tragic dumbass arc where Cain pulls an Anakin Skywalker. 🧐🤔 Hopefully, not. But, I will have to wait and see.

If we're lucky enough to see this get animated, I'd really like for them to do like was the case in the anime adaptation of Snow White with the Red Hair where our MC has her backstory parsed out in far greater detail than the comic. Having that would be extremely helpful here (or so I think).

Critique is from a place of love. I am majorly struggling without my Cain fix. =p

 

[onipuck]

For bonus points, he was also involved in the corruption of another country.

There's being negligent with harmful elements, and then there's just blatantly allowing them to do whatever the fuck they want.
The fuck's wrong with royalty in this world?

 

[riellyster]

Okay, so the pig and the sleazy guy (along with 2 guys I don't know) are about to enter the crime scene with smug faces. Either they have plans against every outcome including Cain's feat just now (That would be pretty close to a Light Yagami tier of planning), or they're merely oblivious idiots.

Those 2 guys were part of the guards unit. Previous chapter, page 6.

 

[TheDragonLord]

There's being negligent with harmful elements, and then there's just blatantly allowing them to do whatever the fuck they want.
The fuck's wrong with royalty in this world?

I'm starting to think that maybe the King's frequent "take over the country" might not he the worst idea. 🤣😅

 

[W1770W]

thks for the update

 

[Knighto]

pig is gonna get f*cking rekt, I will prepare some popcorn
also they hurt lil kitty girl, they deserve a punishment

 

[lurker123]

It's a japanese shounen, so of course he doesn't kill.
Honestly it is one of the biggest tropes there is for japanese media, and one of the more annoying ones (might have to do with the ratings board i guess).

Non lethal punishment is the better solution anyway. It's really disappointing when the antagonizing person gets the easy way out after how repeatedly evil they're portrayed. Shield hero kinda does it well with bitch and her father, strip them of everything they cared about and make them continually suffer.



There are far worse punishments than death.

 

[Wyrm]

Non lethal punishment is the better solution anyway. It's really disappointing when the antagonizing person gets the easy way out after how repeatedly evil they're portrayed. Shield hero kinda does it well with bitch and her father, strip them of everything they cared about and make them continually suffer.



There are far worse punishments than death.

There are, but doesn't that make you more evil than simply applying the death penalty?

(td;dr At the very least, history and modern studies have shown that justice is not served with excessive harm.)

Also, the main question is not "how bad a penalty can you apply?"
The more important questions is "what do you intend the penalty to achieve?" (and implicitly "how well does it serve the stated purpose?")
There are at least 4 non-exclusive answers: retribution (i.e. revenge for the victims or society at large), reparation, rehabilitation, deterrence.

• Being as harmful as possible to the culprit doesn't do anything in regard to reparation and rehabilitation. And it's often doubtful that it works as deterrence either, not even at an individual level seeing how it's likely to cause more resentment. So it mainly serves as retribution.
• Death penalty is similar, but it does serve as individual deterrence. You can't crime again when you're dead. (Unless you're in a setting where ghosts/undead exist... that's a different matter though.) It's been shown that it doesn't work well as global deterrent though. And that's why most modern societies have abandoned the death penalty.

More generally, the different stated purposes are generally addressed differently.
Reparation is often handled with financial penalties and civil service. It's the most simple solution, though there is a limit to its efficiency. There is no financial compensation for human life or lifelong trauma.
Rehabilitation is often handled by education while in detention and monitoring during social reinsertion. (For crimes caused by poverty and desperation, this generally fulfills the goal of individual deterrence too.)
Deterrence is generally done simply by publicizing the results of the trial and the resulting social shaming. This is the most difficult purpose to achieve anyway. You can prevent a guilty party from committing crime again (often with radical options like death, exile or life sentence to imprisonment), but there is little you can do to prevent anyone else from doing it. So the purpose is attained when the vast majority reasonably refrains from crime because there is at least some physical and social penalty for it.
As for retribution... this is complicated as many modern countries have an explicit statement that this purpose is not intended at all, though it might be fulfilled incidentally. When it is a stated purpose, it is often fulfilled by placing the guilty party in detention with various degrees of harsh conditions, or by the death penalty where it still applies. Being overly harmful doesn't help though: studies have shown that victims never feel satisfied anyway, so you're only perpetuating a cycle of evil by increasing the punishment to the highest degree that is physically possible.

I'll also note that Lex Talionis ("eye for an eye") doesn't fulfill much either. It simply propagates the harm that was done back to the culprit. It is pretty much good for revenge only, and it places a cap on the penalty used for this purpose as, morally speaking, one shouldn't punish more harshly than the harm that was done. It doesn't serve as reparation, rehabilitation, and most of the time not as deterrence either, for the same reason that the death penalty doesn't. Even retribution is rarely served as the victim rarely feels satisfied with an equal harm done to their perpetrator, nor even with greater harm.

Justice is a tough balance to reach, isn't it?

 

[TheProtectorOfPureHeartedGirls]

A set-up for Cain but it will be reversed anyway, I can't wait!!!

 

[TheDragonLord]

There are, but doesn't that make you more evil than simply applying the death penalty?

(td;dr At the very least, history and modern studies have shown that justice is not served with excessive harm.)

Also, the main question is not "how bad a penalty can you apply?"
The more important questions is "what do you intend the penalty to achieve?" (and implicitly "how well does it serve the stated purpose?")
There are at least 4 non-exclusive answers: retribution (i.e. revenge for the victims or society at large), reparation, rehabilitation, deterrence.

• Being as harmful as possible to the culprit doesn't do anything in regard to reparation and rehabilitation. And it's often doubtful that it works as deterrence either, not even at an individual level seeing how it's likely to cause more resentment. So it mainly serves as retribution.
• Death penalty is similar, but it does serve as individual deterrence. You can't crime again when you're dead. (Unless you're in a setting where ghosts/undead exist... that's a different matter though.) It's been shown that it doesn't work well as global deterrent though. And that's why most modern societies have abandoned the death penalty.

More generally, the different stated purposes are generally addressed differently.
Reparation is often handled with financial penalties and civil service. It's the most simple solution, though there is a limit to its efficiency. There is no financial compensation for human life or lifelong trauma.
Rehabilitation is often handled by education while in detention and monitoring during social reinsertion. (For crimes caused by poverty and desperation, this generally fulfills the goal of individual deterrence too.)
Deterrence is generally done simply by publicizing the results of the trial and the resulting social shaming. This is the most difficult purpose to achieve anyway. You can prevent a guilty party from committing crime again (often with radical options like death, exile or life sentence to imprisonment), but there is little you can do to prevent anyone else from doing it. So the purpose is attained when the vast majority reasonably refrains from crime because there is at least some physical and social penalty for it.
As for retribution... this is complicated as many modern countries have an explicit statement that this purpose is not intended at all, though it might be fulfilled incidentally. When it is a stated purpose, it is often fulfilled by placing the guilty party in detention with various degrees of harsh conditions, or by the death penalty where it still applies. Being overly harmful doesn't help though: studies have shown that victims never feel satisfied anyway, so you're only perpetuating a cycle of evil by increasing the punishment to the highest degree that is physically possible.

I'll also note that Lex Talionis ("eye for an eye") doesn't fulfill much either. It simply propagates the harm that was done back to the culprit. It is pretty much good for revenge only, and it places a cap on the penalty used for this purpose as, morally speaking, one shouldn't punish more harshly than the harm that was done. It doesn't serve as reparation, rehabilitation, and most of the time not as deterrence either, for the same reason that the death penalty doesn't. Even retribution is rarely served as the victim rarely feels satisfied with an equal harm done to their perpetrator, nor even with greater harm.

Justice is a tough balance to reach, isn't it?

Let us also not forget the ancient traditions of debt forgiveness and sin, in particular, anderarum¹, and the ancient methods of punishment — namely, death or equivalent exchange for wrongs (eye for an eye was equivalent exchange [ethical alchemy for you Fullmetal Alchemy fans] as opposed to excessive; when the Torah speaks of this it is preventative measures to prevent excessive forms of punishment; take an arm vs death! Rape tended to be death likely since, as you noted, there isn't exactly much of a compensation that wouldn't involve the person becoming a villain themselves, so death becomes an ethical compromise), paying some kind of fine or debt to the family — this is often where slavery or debt bondage came from as selling the person into bondage (or selling oneself) was a means of financial compensation for the debt of harm or sin to the other party (or parties) — or lastly, exile, where one could travel to the city of exile for a time (or permanently deoending upon the severity of the crimes) where they would be cut off from the outside world, their horns, families, communities, often in difficult settings.

This last oart is in some stories where one will see cities like this where the sin never ends. The children's children are trapped and exiled. Though, how this played out in real life I cannot say, but the exiling was common practice as it could often effectively mean death for the person. Just traveling alone to the city (provided one survived the journey and the revenge attempts by the victim(s) or their family(families)) of exile was treacherous.

Debt was also picked up due to economic issues. Such as with crop failures, inability to pay taxes, or other debts. These could result in people entering debt bondage. This bondage was in ancient Sumerian and all other related cultures meant to be temporary as national "clean slate" programs existed every so many years; in Torah, this authority was taken away from the palace and instead vested in the Law to occur every 7 and 7 years. The lesser and greater jubilees.

In this story's context, it would be reasonable (like-for-like) for those who benefited by selling people into slavery, specifically children, to have the same punishment meeted out in kind.

The nobles involved would be sold into slavery alongside all those who wrongly benefited as well as their children (like for like). This could be viewed as just assuming the children wrongly benefited from the sins of their parents (re: this guy's kid). However, Cain, irrespective of how annoying or repugnant he might feel towards these aristocrats' children, because of the more modern cultures abstaining from "blood sin" — the sin of blood² whereby the sins of the one would be felt by their entire family. Particularly, in cases of treason where it was common to execute an entire three generations of a family for the crimes of one of their own, as their family members were expected to keep them in check. Exceptions might be made for sufficient efforts (like joining the fight against their family) to opposenthe treachery, though I don't know the legal history to a degree where I could meaningfully comment — Cain would likely oppose them selling the Marques' son into slavery alongside him and his wife/other children. He might likely also oppose him being sold into slavery as Cain likes views slavery as unjust in all circumstances, as this is the commonly held view, particularly following the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade and the subsequent horrors associated with colonial imperialism and other forms of imperialism (as a modern Japanese kid, he'd likely have some degree of an idea about the monumental blowback these things causes/caused global society and as a continuation of his views and exemplary life examples, seek to further those values.

I figured this context might be a worthwhile addition to the nuanced discourse on the topic.

Thanks again, @Wyrm for the nuanced and meaningful exegesis! ❤️💯

1. Hudson, Michael Huckleberry. "…and forgive them their debts": Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption From Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year (1) (Book One in the Tyranny of Debt). ‎ISLET (October 30, 2018). 340-pages. ISBN-13: 978-3981826029.

2. Lectures on the Law. Justice James Wilson. Various copyright dates. First Justice nominated and confirmed to Supreme Court. Lectures originally given 1893 approximately. Part of The Collected Works of James Wilson, 2 Volumes. Of particular note is the US Constitution section on treason that was written by Wilson and was in part a response to the terrors of British Monarchy and the Courts of Star Chambers. See also trail of John Peter Zenger and the appendixes to Building a Bridge to the 18th Century: How Our Past Can Improve the Future. Neil Postman. ©1999. The Collected Works of James Wilson, 2 Volumes and its history

 

[TheDragonLord]

There are, but doesn't that make you more evil than simply applying the death penalty?

(td;dr At the very least, history and modern studies have shown that justice is not served with excessive harm.)

Also, the main question is not "how bad a penalty can you apply?"
The more important questions is "what do you intend the penalty to achieve?" (and implicitly "how well does it serve the stated purpose?")
There are at least 4 non-exclusive answers: retribution (i.e. revenge for the victims or society at large), reparation, rehabilitation, deterrence.

• Being as harmful as possible to the culprit doesn't do anything in regard to reparation and rehabilitation. And it's often doubtful that it works as deterrence either, not even at an individual level seeing how it's likely to cause more resentment. So it mainly serves as retribution.
• Death penalty is similar, but it does serve as individual deterrence. You can't crime again when you're dead. (Unless you're in a setting where ghosts/undead exist... that's a different matter though.) It's been shown that it doesn't work well as global deterrent though. And that's why most modern societies have abandoned the death penalty.

More generally, the different stated purposes are generally addressed differently.
Reparation is often handled with financial penalties and civil service. It's the most simple solution, though there is a limit to its efficiency. There is no financial compensation for human life or lifelong trauma.
Rehabilitation is often handled by education while in detention and monitoring during social reinsertion. (For crimes caused by poverty and desperation, this generally fulfills the goal of individual deterrence too.)
Deterrence is generally done simply by publicizing the results of the trial and the resulting social shaming. This is the most difficult purpose to achieve anyway. You can prevent a guilty party from committing crime again (often with radical options like death, exile or life sentence to imprisonment), but there is little you can do to prevent anyone else from doing it. So the purpose is attained when the vast majority reasonably refrains from crime because there is at least some physical and social penalty for it.
As for retribution... this is complicated as many modern countries have an explicit statement that this purpose is not intended at all, though it might be fulfilled incidentally. When it is a stated purpose, it is often fulfilled by placing the guilty party in detention with various degrees of harsh conditions, or by the death penalty where it still applies. Being overly harmful doesn't help though: studies have shown that victims never feel satisfied anyway, so you're only perpetuating a cycle of evil by increasing the punishment to the highest degree that is physically possible.

I'll also note that Lex Talionis ("eye for an eye") doesn't fulfill much either. It simply propagates the harm that was done back to the culprit. It is pretty much good for revenge only, and it places a cap on the penalty used for this purpose as, morally speaking, one shouldn't punish more harshly than the harm that was done. It doesn't serve as reparation, rehabilitation, and most of the time not as deterrence either, for the same reason that the death penalty doesn't. Even retribution is rarely served as the victim rarely feels satisfied with an equal harm done to their perpetrator, nor even with greater harm.

Justice is a tough balance to reach, isn't it?

Also, and while not specifically addressed, vengeance from an emotional framework may well be a factor here (as demonstrated by readers' emotional reactions; seeking retribution for the pain caused to these characters). Retribution from an ethical framework I think would be better discussed by recognizing the inherent distinction between the ethos (reputation and ethics; community/uprightness/character of the individual elements) and logos (logic) as compared with the  pathos (emotions and passions) of retribution.

I suspect many a reader is responding to a blending of these three elements, which is relevant here as it muddies the issues of the ethics of vengeance. Namely, the retribution or vengeance of the victim and their family for the pain they directly experience as contrasted with that exacted by society and the legal system. Namely, Parma and the other children, victims of these slave traders and profiteers as opposed to the other nobles and the palace meeking out retribution in their behalf. In the former's case, arguably, they as first and secondary victims of the crime (the pain the children and their family's experienced promoting them to retribution) as opposed to as we often ask of our courts, "blind justice" who is not going to take a particular preference to any party, but will offer up justice in tye merits ofntye facts in accordance with the best principles of jurisprudence known to those present/participating, or known to society or extant.

When a victim, their family, or community acts out retribution it is argued that it occurs as a result ifbthe pain that they feel for the harm done to the person, but also to them as an extension of their love for the person(s). The person(s), provided they are able to, could seek out vengeance for themselves/their family — re: "My name is Inego Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!" — which might, though not necessarily, be argued to fall under different sets of rules of ethics. Though, Cain is likely operating to some degree on the Kantian notion of The Golden or Platinum rule, whereby blind justice and irrespective of their own desires to act, should surrender their vengeance to the courts so that their harms can be justly arbitrated before the law, and appropriate punishments meeked out so as to limit harm and establish order within society—thereby creating a legal framework for survival.

Though, it is relevant here to note that humans are in large measure, emotional creatures that do not strictly operate on logic (we try to act like Vulcans, but we are human, with human passions and pains), and therefore, we must take into consideration the pathos in addition to the ethos and logos of a situation. We in effect are called to be like the President of the new merged Vulcan-Romulan homeworld, blending logic, ethics and reputation, and emotion into one unified whole. What we might call "wise mind" in DBT (Dialogical Behaviral Therapy).

As such, I think it relevant if us in our discussions to recall that humans (be they readers or the characters in stories written/inspired by humans) must consider how we fit into this ethical model. It's understandable that readers in the passion of the moment, feeling the pain emparted by their reading of the stories and identifying with the characters and their stories, to then respond in calls for vengeance. Likewise, it is reasonable for them to call out "how this was gotten away with", despite the numerous plausible explanations — the criminals were really effective and Cain is OP as fook, so this may be the first time evidence of the kidnapping emerged. It also could be a shortcoming of the writing itself (the author simply didn't think about how this plot element given how long it was going on would impact the rest of the story). It may also be that the nobles were hiding this from the royal family as nobles typically managed law in their own provinces (though not exclusively; it would depend upon how the legal systems were constructed in a society, and not every writer is well versed in the histories of all laws and jurisprudence whereby these things might be implicitly better plotted/thought out, with particular emphasis on how their world's legal system works or how it might play into the stories as a whole.). They might have been investigating, but lacked sufficient evidence (not all monarchies are absolutely, and even then, aristocrats often maintain sufficient legal immunities or protections such that considerably greater amounts of evidence would be required to bring suit. This is not stated because the person has a universal right to it, but often in those systems there was a cultural tradition backing it.). It's also possible that the low level crews were sufficiently bribed or otherwise kept in check to prevent the monarchy from finding out.

 

[zeronguyen]

Someone is digging his own grave deep enough for his own...