Isekai Yururi Kikou: Kosodateshinagara Boukensha Shimasu

You need to log in to comment.

Vol. 2 Ch. 16 - I'll Always Be By Your Side
As much dislike as I have for the corrupt noble and slave trader tropes in these stories, I was surprised to see both of these problems show up and get resolved within two chapters. We only see the slave trader for this one chapter, and we never see the Baron. These two chapters could have been cut and absolutely nothing would have changed.

It felt like an afterthought, or some sort of obligation before moving on to the next part of the story.
Children of a god because slaves once before? Seems like the water good is... no comment.
@halloween20 yes and that is an interesting hiccup lol
@flannan That doesn't help change my opinion that they are incompetent, and thus useless.
Last edited 6 mo ago by cor3zone.
@cor3zone about gods
@beeqwop MC didn't say all slavery is vile. he just thinks making children slaves is vile, especialy when he thinks about elena and allen.
@sjmcc13 If they are so restricted, and apparently not all good at their jobs, they don't deserve worship, IMO.
@cor3zone : the water god disappearing has no excuse, he is ditching his work and kids. As to the others

Also, most of the nobles in this series are far from jerks, it is a bit refreshing in that regards. Though the "bribing" with new foods (and it goes on, let it be known this is a foodie manga) helps.
Lol that starts out with the correct proposition that slavery is vile but then ends with the so-called poetic justice of enslaving the slave merchant, which Takumi doesn’t even think about once
To be quite frank here, I wish he would've just went full on Inuyasha wind scar on that fat piece of shit just so we can't have any more of his nuisance.
@flannan If he broke the law, he would be an enemy of the state. The state doesn't know he's a divine messenger, just that he broke the law, and if they did know he wouldn't need to break the law. If the state knew about the true nature of MC and kids, they would punish the slave trader immediately. Meaning MC doesn't need to do it himself. Since they didn't punish the slaver right away, they can't know.

Besides, if the gods were worthy of obeying, this situation would never have happened. A god gets a human pregnant, which kills her, and his kids ends up being slaves. The god is fuck-knows-where, so his colleague has to sent someone they accidentally killed to take care of the problem, because they can't fix it themselves apparently. It seems the gods have very little actual influence in the world, and less competence.

Edit: besides, you're the one "assuming fantasy worlds don't work like modern world". Nobles can ignore the people because they have higher levels? Come on, that is assuming fantasy society differs from real society if ever I saw it. It's even about your precious "choice"; nobles choose to act like assholes because their levels mean they can.
Last edited 6 mo ago by cor3zone.
@Doomer - he conspired with a corrupt noble and planned to use his influence. But no amount of noble titles and influence can beat modern food.

@cor3zone - MC isn't enemy of the state, he is a divine messenger. That's how gods-based morality works.
I wish people would stop assuming fantasy worlds don't work like modern world only when it will make things worse. A major draw of fantasy is that mighty protagonists can get away with anything, and the don't kill people because that is their choice, not society's choice.
@Drifter Now im sad, i wanted to see that guy in a prison with gay goblin-guards... XDDDDDDDD
@Silwith You gave my post a lot more thought than it deserves. It was just a tongue in cheek way of saying I think the guy who threw two cute kids to the wolves deserves a horrible end.
so his plan was to just demand those kids to become his slaves without any paperwork or either of them having a slave mark and to do it in broad daylight in the middle of the street? how exactly did he expect that to work out on his favor?
@flannan My original comment, which started this whole discussion, was directed at someone pushing their own ideas of 'justice', which has to be based on our reality, onto the story. So I responded with another form of 'justice' based on our reality.

Flipping your argument: if they are so powerful as to ignore the will of the people, why even bother with the useless peasants at all? Why form a country to protect them, when you can just protect yourself with your own power?

Why are the ruling class the ruling class? Because they have money or social status. Why do they need money or social status? Because society exists. It's a circle; you can't have a ruling class if the majority isn't worth ruling over. Yes, in history the aristocracy abused the people. Look what happened pretty much everywhere in history: bloody rebellion.

Ok, so killing slave traders is fine if it prevents divine intervention? Well shit, now the demi-gods are in the care of a criminal, an enemy of the state. Divine intervention is now unavoidable if the gods want to ensure the children's safety.
@cor3zone - your democratic theories have two problems:
1) This is a fantasy world where ruling class can be high-level enough to ignore the majority opinion. This is pretty much the exaggeration of the real middle ages, where a knight had a lot of advantage in strength over peasants.
2) This is a fantasy world, and there are gods in there, and they get to make the rules too. No matter what all humans say, enslaving and abusing children of a water god is punishable by divine intervention (usually on the scale of erasing cities, but it could be worse) if it is not remedied quickly enough. So yeah, killing a slave trader or two is an acceptable price to avoid the worst case scenario.
@Goldenzeal That's my entire point. Since justice is relative to each person, in a society the majority decides what "for the greater good of the people" really entails. It's represented by the law.

All rebels claim to be on the side of 'justice', but only the ones who actually succeded in their rebellion are 'just'. The ones who fail are just traitors, and 'unjust' to the majority. Whether the ruler is a dictator or not, their army (likely the majority since they won) still obeyed. Which would make the ruler 'just' from a societal viewpoint, and a representative of the majority.

I agree that 'law' is not the be-all and end-all of 'justice', but I'm arguing on a society-level. Personally I think the law is fucked-up, but it's slow to change so not much I myself can do. I'm too lazy to start my own political movement.?

All of this is irrelevant to MC though, since right now his 'justice' is taking care of the kids. Challenging the 'justice' of an entire country just to punish some raving slave trader would not help, regardless of his party's strength.?
a villain properly arrested to an authority? and MC not involved himself further on the case to show his badassery? thats new...

The law is not the only way to messure justice, you should read up on what the diffrence between law and justice really is.
The law does not dictate what is fair and just, its a means to uphold it.
Justice also can and do mean a lot of different things to different people so its possible that for us what we consider justice is two very different things.
Look up "What Is Justice?: Crash Course Philosophy" it's a pretty interesting youtube video on the topic but i digress...

Also there are multiple ways for a ruling elite to be in control despite ignoring the majority´s wishes, doing so usually ends badly for them in the long run as you said but its far from a quick process.
In the meantime the current law that only benefits the rich and nobles wont be just if you consider justice to be "for the greater good of the people" as the law only benefits the few rich...
But it will if you only consider justice to be" following the rules ".
back in the days a law system run by nobles could last for decades or centuarys before anyone off the commoners got the power to change them.
its true anyone can claim to fight for justice, however that do not make it true and is a moot point in this argument anyway.

as for who should make the rules, yes that is a tricky question with no perfect answer.
Despite the bad reputation monarchs and dictators have gotten for being quick to turn to corruption and its other failings. There are some benefits to a system where one person makes all the decisions.
a system where all people have a voice is almost always considered to be more fair and just as literally everyone can make their voice herd and the rules of society usually shapes to follow the wishes of the public.
But it also always takes a lot longer to make any changes to the system as not everyone is going to agree most of the time if they even know what is best for them in the first place witch is not always the chase....
Last edited 6 mo ago by Goldenzeal.
Read older comments