Mahouka - Episode 18 Discussion / Poll

[somerand]

Originally Posted by SeaDoor

OK... I am confused.
I do not understand why it was important for Tatsuya to marry Mayumi to be apart of the 10 Master Clans. I thought the Yotsuba Clans WAS one of them so Tatsuya is also. Do his classmates not know that Tatsuya is Yotsuba? Doesn't that make what Juumonji's advice irrelevant?

BTW: I am still being a bit unsettled by what really seems to be elitists, maybe even fascist, undertone in this series.

I've seen so many anime only watchers comment about Tatsuya and the Yotsuba. Most for some reason seem to think that Tatsuya's biggest secret is that he is tarous silver and that will be the big reveal.

No one knows that Tatsuya and Miyuki are Yotsuba. It's their biggest secret and they are forbidden from revealing it for several reasons. The Yotsuba are a very secretive clan, the only publically known member of the entire clan that the Yotsuba acknowledge as one of their own is the clan head herself, Yotsuba Maya. The Yotsuba have the smallest number of members out of the master clans but their members are the most powerful/elite like Tasuya and Miyuki. The Yotsuba also don't want attention drawn to Tatsuya and Miyuki because Tatsuya as mentioned in this episode is a strategic class military asset and the other clans learning of this would try to weaken them even further and take action.

For all the people asking "Why did the Yotsuba not stop the idea of Tatsuya marrying into the master clans at the conference?", the answer is kind of obvious. Openingly rejecting the idea would make a Yotsuba/Tatsuya connection fairly obvious and there's no risk of Tatsuya actually accepting it. He knows the Yotsuba wont allow him to accept it and guarding Miuyki is the only thing he cares about. The Yotsuba know Tatsuya will refuse so there's no need to stand out by rejecting the idea formally at the clan conference.

[kukuru]

Originally Posted by Eclipze

Which, honestly, is a really dumb motivation considering they're the second set of "antagonists" in the story so far. At least now they've revealed the whole Magic Enhancers deal that No Head Dragons are responsible for, but otherwise they have been as disappointingly incompetent as ever.

Umm no, the biggest and baddest thing terrorist can do is by having resources like quick bucks.

You gotta get funding somewhere to promote your ideals and follow through.

They probably bet some big bucks in, and no one likes it when you waste a lot of money on nothing.

Just watch the news. Where do you think all these terror organizations are alive in the world. Gotta get bankrolled somehow.

[ladytanaka]

Originally Posted by kukuru

Umm no, the biggest and baddest thing terrorist can do is by having resources like quick bucks.

IIRC, No-Head Dragon is not a terrorist organization, but actually a criminal syndicate. They're not pushing some ideological agenda, but rather their entire purpose is simply to make money.

The money they hoped to make by forcing First High to lose was purely to line their own pockets.

[kukuru]

Originally Posted by ladytanaka

IIRC, No-Head Dragon is not a terrorist organization, but actually a criminal syndicate. They're not pushing some ideological agenda, but rather their entire purpose is simply to make money.

The money they hoped to make by forcing First High to lose was purely to line their own pockets.

It's already been mentioned if you follow the long string of clues. No-head dragon is a branch of a much larger organization.

Revealed at the end of the first arc, the ani-magican fraction, the east Asian alliancem no head dragon...lots of strings.

What makes mahouka, mahouka is it's deep world building and realistically imitation of the real world.

[Calca]

Of all the NSC for those guys to try and rig, they pick the one Tatsuya happened to be in.

Oops

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by karice67

You're missing the point.

You can call it murder. We can all call it murder. But whether it is against the law depends on what the laws say. Unless you know what the laws of Japan in the Mahouka universe are, you can't actually say that what Tatsuya did was against the law.

GDB and everyone else's point was about 'murder and the law', whereas the point you keep trying to make is only about 'murder'. Please try to understand that difference, at least.

That wasn't what GDB was saying. He was saying that you can't call it against the law because the people in Mahouka can't provide evidence that Tatsuya did it, save for Fujibayashi who obviously won't tell anybody.

Originally Posted by GDB

Well, part of the law requires evidence in order to convict. The only evidence they have is that one officer standing behind him. Considering they're partners, she wouldn't do that.

Originally Posted by GDB

Again, if you want to call him a bad person, it's fine to denounce him as a murderer. But when you bring law into it and say "That's against the law!", then yes, you need evidence.

Originally Posted by cyberdemon

But how can you determine it was murder if there is no evidence and no bodies?

Originally Posted by cyberdemon

But no one in the story can. There's no bodies so you can't determine they are dead, only missing. Tatsuya wasn't even in the same room so there will be zero evidence in his involvement. That Fujibayashi was with him also means that his actions were backed by the government. Tatsuya even mentions that it is a top secret operation.

Originally Posted by cyberdemon

But it can make said laws. After 9/11 Bush made a law that allowed any means necessary to capture or kill the likes of Osama Bin Laden and the people or countries that worked with him to attack the US.

The Patriot Act still needed to be enacted by Congress. The US government is not legislature, executive and judiciary by itself.

[ladytanaka]

Murder is (currently) generally considered to be "the unlawful killing of a human by another human with malice aforethought (i.e., intent to kill, seriously injure, or with wanton disregard, etc.)". Since there's no question that Tatsuya killed human beings with the deliberate intent to do so, the only real issue is whether the killings were "unlawful" in the Mahouka universe. Unfortunately, we don't really have any details about the Mahouka laws or legal system.

But even assuming the Mahouka laws are similar to what we have now (at least in the US and Europe), a common exception to murder is the killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants in accordance with lawful orders in war, so I suppose an argument can be made that Tatsuya's killing of the No-Head Dragon members falls under this exception.

However, it again all depends on what constitutes as "lawful" -- i.e., does a spec ops military unit have the authority to order execution of possible threats to national security, etc. The lack of an official ceasefire may give the military greater discretion for determining who can be considered an "enemy combatant".

In the end, the issue is academic, because even if Tatsuya's killings were unlawful in the official sense, there's no chance he'd be prosecuted.

[eiyuuou]

Why are we using US logic to apply on a fantasy story?
Anyway, NHD branch is already considered a threat to national security and had planned terrorism on innocents. They are already law breakers and no amount of justification/knighting will change the facts.

[karice67]

Careful people, please remember not to refer to the LN here...

Originally Posted by SigUp

That wasn't what GDB was saying. He was saying that you can't call it against the law because the people in Mahouka can't provide evidence that Tatsuya did it, save for Fujibayashi who obviously won't tell anybody.

I know what GDB said, and I don't think it's quite right either.

But that was not my point, which was made in response to a comment you made about 'murder':

Originally Posted by karice67

You're missing the point.

You can call it murder. We can all call it murder. But whether it is against the law depends on what the laws say. Unless you know what the laws of Japan in the Mahouka universe are, you can't actually say that what Tatsuya did was against the law.

GDB and everyone else's point was about 'murder and the law', whereas the point you keep trying to make is only about 'murder'. Please try to understand that difference, at least.

From the start of the discussion, you've been conflating what is actually a very clear distinction between 'murder' and 'what the law says about murder' in your arguments. If you want to refute what GDB said, then you need to refer to laws in the Japan of Mahouka, not to the laws in our world, nor to your own definition of murder (even if it is a definition that most people share). And that is what everyone else who has replied to you has been trying to explain - e.g. see ladytanaka's response to you for what is probably the clearest explanation of the problem with your argument.

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by ladytanaka

But even assuming the Mahouka laws are similar to what we have now (at least in the US and Europe), a common exception to murder is the killing of enemy combatants by lawful combatants in accordance with lawful orders in war, so I suppose an argument can be made that Tatsuya's killing of the No-Head Dragon members falls under this exception.

Are the No Head Dragons members "combatants"? They sure aren't taking direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. And even if they were, considering that they were no danger anymore and have basically surrendered (talking about the last three at the end) they can no longer be simply killed. I don't think I need to explain how killing surrendering enemies or POWs isn't protected by the laws of war.

But as I said, they aren't combattants. They neither are part of the armed forces (from what we've seen), nor are they acting as agents for a government. For all intents and purposes, they are civilians. And yes, even crime syndicate members are technically civilians.

Originally Posted by karice67

If you want to refute what GDB said, then you need to refer to laws in the Japan of Mahouka, not to the laws in our world, nor to your own definition of murder (even if it is a definition that most people share).

I don't need the Mahouka laws in order to refute the general notion that something isn't unlawful, just because there aren't any evidences to convict somebody. That was the issue at the core of this matter. The rest just sprang out from that.

Originally Posted by eiyuuou

Anyway, NHD branch is already considered a threat to national security and had planned terrorism on innocents. They are already law breakers and no amount of justification/knighting will change the facts.

Somebody breaking the law doesn't give anybody the justification to break the law themselves in order to deal with them. But enough of that.

[zero7090]

Originally Posted by bietchie11

Get me some "Eyes on me" #Faye Wong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z1K7TeBvr8

1,5 decade ago and it is still so good.

[karice67]

Originally Posted by SigUp

I don't need the Mahouka laws in order to refute the general notion that something isn't unlawful, just because there aren't any evidences to convict somebody. That was the issue at the core of this matter. The rest just sprang out from that.

Interestingly enough, that really isn't what GDB said, as he obseved (bolded).

Spoiler for list of quotes:

Originally Posted by moridin84

He murdered all those people. If nothing else, it's against the law.

Originally Posted by GDB

Well, part of the law requires evidence in order to convict. The only evidence they have is that one officer standing behind him. Considering they're partners, she wouldn't do that.

Originally Posted by SigUp

You are mixing things. To convict you need evidence. But evidence isn't part of the law. Nowhere on the world does the law state "Only when there is evidence is murder considered unlawful".

Originally Posted by cyberdemon

But how can you determine it was murder if there is no evidence and no bodies?

Originally Posted by GDB

I'm not saying it isn't against the law (and yes, requiring evidence to convict is part of the law, just not the same law... it's like, "the law", rather than this law), I'm just saying it doesn't matter because good luck holding that against him in any lawful way.

If you want to argue he's a bad person for killing people too weak to fight back who were begging for mercy, then go ahead. But don't bother bringing the "law" into it.

Originally Posted by SigUp

Huh? We saw him killing them, so we know it was murder. This is enough to call it murder. Or do we as viewer have to go Detective Conan on it, in order to be able to call it murder?

Originally Posted by GDB

Again, if you want to call him a bad person, it's fine to denounce him as a murderer. But when you bring law into it and say "That's against the law!", then yes, you need evidence.

Also, the viewers should totally go Detective Conan on it. Call in Shiro (NGNL), she has the "a-re-re" down perfectly.

Now that I've looked back over it even more carefully, GDB never actually claimed that murder was against the law, not even in that second bolded part, which you quoted last time. His point has always been that "it doesn't matter if it's against the law or not, as they wouldn't be able to convict him." You were the one who misunderstood him first.

On the other hand, cyberdemon's "But how can you determine it was murder if there is no evidence and no bodies?" looks like it means what you argue GDB said. However, based on his/her previous post, I think he/she was also trying to argue that "it doesn't matter because no one can actually determine that a murder took place." The confusion probably resulted because they were on the same page, whereas you were on a different one.

And my own point was a separate issue, i.e. that one of the problems with your arguments was that you were conflating "murder" and "what the law says about murder." If you think that doesn't matter, so be it.

======

Just realised one almost saving grace of the dance scenes...the last one showed students from different schools dancing with each other - a nice change from the quasi-enmity that marked the competition itself...

But it still wasn't the best ending to the arc. Hoping the Yokohama arc is better ^^

[Rava]

This is reminding me of a line from a novel (edit: An American one, not Mahouka): "murder is a legal definition. You said I killed unethically."

[karice67]

Originally Posted by Rava

This is reminding me of a line from a novel (edit: An American one, not Mahouka): "murder is a legal definition. You said I killed unethically."

Lol, true that. That's pretty much what is comes down to. I mean, no one here is actually claiming that Tatsuya's actions were morally right/ethical. It doesn't matter if any observers think it was excessive - he just took the course of action that would soothe his own anger, and the nature of his magic means that he can get away with it.

Perhaps that's where the point Kazuma made to Kudou comes in.

His magic spells are strategic weapons that should be, and are, restricted by several layers of safety locks. It would be beyond cruel to ask him to take responsibility for managing such powerful magic all by himself.

NB: I edited the translation slightly because, based on this discussion, the nuance of what Kazama said has changed for me: Tatsuya can kill at will, because of his skills, and because of his lack of emotions. So the kindest thing that others can do for him is the make sure he cannot take such extreme courses of action whenever he wants to.

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by karice67

Now that I've looked back over it even more carefully, GDB never actually claimed that murder was against the law, not even in that second bolded part, which you quoted last time. His point has always been that "it doesn't matter if it's against the law or not, as they wouldn't be able to convict him." You were the one who misunderstood GDB first.

This is getting tiring. For the last time, his point was that the ability to convict is part of the law, which I refuted, as there is a difference between being able to convict somebody and the illegality of an action. Moridin first came with "it's against the law", which GDB suddenly turned into a matter of conviction and evidence.

[Lexxus]

Originally Posted by eiyuuou

Why are we using US logic to apply on a fantasy story?

Because US is the only country in the world?

[karice67]

Originally Posted by SigUp

This is getting tiring. For the last time, his point was that the ability to convict is part of the law, which I refuted, as there is a difference between being able to convict somebody and the illegality of an action. Moridin first came with "it's against the law", which GDB suddenly turned into a matter of conviction and evidence.

Two points:

First, GDB's point was not made directly in response to your point that 'Tatsuya's actions were unethical/unnecessarily extreme.' Rather, it was made in response to a comment by moridin84.

Second, the reason you gave for your refutation does not actually refute GDB's point that "it doesn't matter in the context of the show," which can be said to be somewhat similar to a response made by another poster in that both points seem to be valid responses to the opinion that 'Tatsuya's actions are unethical/unnecessarily extreme', even though they don't refute such a claim.

I am tired of this too: you were talking past each other, and as far as I can see, you are still the one that misunderstood him first.

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by karice67

First, GDB's point was not made directly in response to your point that 'Tatsuya's actions were unethical.' Rather, it was made in response to a comment by moridin84.

Why are you telling me that? I just said it was a reply to moridin in the post you quoted.

Second, and the reason you gave for your refutation does not actually refute his point that "it doesn't matter in the context of the show."

I was replying to this post, and where is "it doesn't matter in the context of this show" stated here? You are mixing his posts prior and after my post together into one.

Originally Posted by GDB

Well, part of the law requires evidence in order to convict. The only evidence they have is that one officer standing behind him. Considering they're partners, she wouldn't do that.

But oh well, we are getting severely off the road for this topic.

[thundrakkon]

This discussion is beginning to go around in circles.

Originally Posted by SigUp

Are the No Head Dragons members "combatants"? They sure aren't taking direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. And even if they were, considering that they were no danger anymore and have basically surrendered (talking about the last three at the end) they can no longer be simply killed. I don't think I need to explain how killing surrendering enemies or POWs isn't protected by the laws of war.

Example: Are Generals who order the assaults combatants when they themselves are not the one pulling the trigger? Are Al Qaeda leaders who order the suicide bombings combatants?

Those that order the actions are just as, if not more responsible that the ones pulling the trigger. What did the No Head Dragon members do? Ordered the attempted suicide "bombing" of the bus. Plotted accidents in the Nine Schools Competition, which could have lead to a number of injuries or death. Last but not least, they blatantly ordered one of their men to massacre hundreds of innocent civilian spectators (luckily stopped by Japan's special forces).

As for Tatsuya eliminating them even after they no longer had the will to fight, there are a few reasons.

• One, he was ordered to eliminate them and obtain information about their leader; hence, he had no obligation to keep anyone alive.
• Two, he was in no position to apprehend them, since it is a 2 person mission and he was hundreds of yards away.
• Three, if the members escape, they will report it back to their leaders concerning the identity of Tatsuya, since they recognize his special ability, which could be a potential threat later on for retribution.

Now, if you are concerned about the lawfulness of all this, it doesn't matter in the Mahouka world. Regardless of what the law in Mahouka would be, there are 2 facts that make any law meaningless.

1) He was ordered by his commander, with the backing of the military, for the mission.
2) He is protected by the Yotsuba family.

What do we know about the Mahouka world? That the 10 Master Clans essentially control everything, meaning they control the politics and the laws. The military is the other organization of power, since they are technically still warring with other nations. Tatsuya is covered.

As for what you say is murder, let me leave you with the definition here:

Murder = The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by thundrakkon

Example: Are Generals who order the assaults combatants when they themselves are not the one pulling the trigger? Are Al Qaeda leaders who order the suicide bombings combatants?

Definition per ICRC of what constitutes a combatant:

Rule 3. All members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict are combatants, except medical and religious personnel.

The No Head Dragon members are not members of the military forces of a country. They aren't even official representatives. They are regular civilians. Even criminals are considered civilians.