While he is an idiot who thinks with his shlong. He didnt r*pe anybody. As far as chapter 19 goes

umm forcing someone to sleep for you using blackmail is tape and violation of basic human rights if you read the laws.

to bad this novel was dropped by the Author over a year ago i dont even know why they added it to WN

I dont understand the arc you are talking about, if your referring to the "be my woman or no food", that wouldn't be blackmail as it isnt a threat of showing or having something it's an offer of something for something else. Now if he locked her up then did that, yes rape but he didnt lock her up. Not morally "righteous" but not a cut and dry case. I could see the defense winning if taken to court somehow.

Does it really matter? If someone's set their goal on power just so they can get women... it's just sad. While pursuing pleasure is indeed great, but is this the only thing you want to do with it. I mean soo many younge people that rise to power/ wealth, use it to pursue this goal. As far as I know, most end up regretting it.

Dude he legit raped , according to law if a more powerful man presses on a woman its rape , even if it was consensual

hey you should read the dark system author driving traffic to my own book😁😁😁. based on your reply here you will like it.

Thanks for the recommendation but I don't read Harem novels

According to the law in the 1900s it was fine to beat your wife with a stick no larger than the size of your thumb, hence "rule of thumb". If you wanna use the law as an argument then know it. Also if it is the apocalypse why are you even trying to debate human rights, they have none except survival of the fittest.

hey sorry for the tag. put it's not a harem novel. thanks for letting me know. wait maybe it is a heram novel in terms of the other /side character having multiple wife's. but not the major character.

hey read the dark system. author driving traffic to my own book😁😁. it's good in my opinion. let's say it's aabout a ruthless assassin😁😁😇

it's the apocalypse that took place in the 21st century just because we are used to reading apocalypse novels we tend to assume worst case scenario. As a person living in the 21st century the laws still apply. at least the definition of rape still is the same even if no one is there to enforce those laws that doesn't change what he did was wrong and disgusting

She was literally starving to death and he offers her have *** with me and I will save your life or I will leave you to rot and die. he took advantage of her situation, in such a scenario consent doesn't count as it is not out of free uninfluenced will. let me change things a bit for you to understand. an old man is starving to death and you force him to sign his Inheritance to you in exchange for food, this is again a violation of rights. Ultimately this like what loan sharks might do trap ppl and they might be able to escape the law but nonetheless doesn't make their actions justifiable or acceptable. I mean this situation is something you might expect a third rate villain to do. lmagine a scenario where the mc wasnt an incel but a normal mentally healthy member of society. Now his sister is in another building and this Thug A is with her. He holds power and resources, and asks the MC's sister(or mother or girlfriend or love interest) to sleep with him in exchange for food. Now whether or not she does it, let's say the MC arrives at the scene looking for his sister, what do you think our mc should do now. Should he be like go on and **** my sister I can understand your situation. Or will be go on and kill him in a fit of anger. Place yourself in the scenario and think again. Ultimately you should agree that what the mc of this story did was wrong and disgusting.

Ah okay sounds awesome, I'll read it! Though not sure how I'll like it since I don't like assasins lol

Yes, however she coulda turned down food and gone her way and found food herself without selling her body. In the end she sold herself she wasn't raped cuz by that logic every time a prostitute has *** for money it is rape. By broadening rapes meaning you take away from it and lower the severity of people who were actually raped.

So while saying it doesnt legally violate consent you said it was r*pe... then brought up an example of another deal with an old man. (Pretty sure for an emotional shot?) then went to loan sharks, where the issue with that is they are physically violent and destructive not just simple "I loan and you pay back at high interest". Then you went for another emotional example of the MCs (hypothetically) sister having the same offer. Then completely ignore the part of my comment where I say its "not morally 'righteous'" and say it's not right. Bruh, none of what you said is a counter point. Yes its morally wrong, is it actual r*pe or blackmail. no it doesnt fit the legal definitions. And the world is never about justifying what you didnt do, but what you did. I didnt take the money my grandmother left me when she died and send it to feed people Africa, but I'm not the reason they died. Same with the story and the old man example. Neither would the "opportunist" (the mc) preying on the weak actually be responsible for their deaths. The death is more like a set outcome, but with invention could be changed. However different people have different reasons to intervene. BLM riot for George Floyd but when African people who weren't career criminals suffer in the current slave trade they stay silent. Or maybe go to starbucks and have coffee from beans collected by child workers. The point is, not taking action isnt legally wrong an anyway, otherwise its be people forcing others to do stuff. And idk forcing people against their will to do physical work sounds alot like slavery. Which I assume you would see as morally wrong too.

He didnt press he actually did the whole car dealership walk away if I remember or was it that he flaunted? You could make a case for prostitution! But like I said to another comment legally I could see a someone escaping r*pe charges if this was the case. Actually one moment which could be considered closer to r*pe is the balcony scene because there was no indication consent first. So she could claim that she felt threatened and thus didnt resist. So if you wanna use that as your example then I could see that.

I'm not defending his actions nor saying his character is intelligent. But I was just correct the term used because if it gets distorted too much it loses its meaning and value thus degrading actually causes. However, I think it is realistic of an average person to pursue stuff like that considering the current priorities of younger generations (which I'm apart of, so "okay boomer" joke wont work.) So 1 point for realism -1 point because average people of the younger generation, imo, suck

I mean I agree you have a point of but I read somewhere that a consent from a drink person doesn't count as they aren't in a position to make decisions for themselves. There are also many other cases. So thats what I meant. But I guess this specific case at the very start might not be classified as rape, but the balcony scene and other stuff is pushing the line I guess.

Replying to somebody else I did mention that the balcony could be pushed as a case of R*pe. For drinking and and age, it is specific event or details which are define as an way to remove legitimacy from consent. We dont know how long she was starving for but if it was for long enough then maybe a case could be made for her being delusional for lack of nutrition. but she seems healthy enough to move and was coherent so I'm not sure that reason would stick.