Dungeon meshi

Will they win their ineditable battle against the main party?

Could the elf solo them?

they'd get rekt by some low level monsters again again like the dumb fucks they are.

It will be cooking competition

New chpter or old? I don't remember this scene.

came out a couple days ago

Damn, guess I missed it. Thanks.

Is the halfling a girl or a boy with ponytail? This is important.
It will make it easier for me to imagine what he/she does with the beastman.

I choose to believe the halfling is a girl.
Plus it's the most and only female-looking one from the Halfling Lineup.

Would you consider Kabru as edgy?

she has a name, don't call her the elf.

The main party:
Red Dragon mage
Red Dragon mage's brother who eats anything, even metal
Dwarf with an adamantium shield and mithril weapon
Dark elf with a 180° vision

This party:
6 dead people from various job class

Do the math

>Killing monsters.

Bitchy mage is such a qt holy shit.

I don't care about the battle, I just want to see their reaction when they see that the main cast eats monsters and when they have to eat monsters too because they are hungry tired and injured.
Especially the halfling and the mage

I think elfs are an all female race and halflings an all male race.
they probably reproduce with each other

Third elf is (male)

Yet they jobbed against a single female elf(male) teenager

Why are we following McEdge and his team of jobbers?

He's a nice guy, he's just seen some shit.

Don't you like to know where your food comes from?

Not really. Killing those fucks was a good thing.

That old female gnome looks like an old actor whose name I forgot

Yes, he is bad as them too

>Waah someone stole my food
>Lets kill these guys and steal their food!

I cant wait for the page where Laius drives his sword through him

We don't know anything about that.

We know

Author refers to her as (male), every manga needs a trap

>Author refers to her as (male)
Where? Must have missed that.

Still waiting for cat girl from the one shot to join.

is pointedness of the ears a sign of beauty among elfs?
LIke how we think that big ose is uglier than a straight nose for instance.
Or of noble descent, of coming from the high elfs or things like that?
Beause the smug bitsh on the left has the pointiest ears of all and hers curve downwards instead of upwards like the plebs to her right

Im not sure if its just translator but in painting arc

>Will they win their ineditable battle against the main party?
They died like 10 floors above the heroes...twice, there is no way they can beat them

>Could the elf solo them?
I don't think so

Marcille imagines her idealized self to look like this. Though she would need to lose a lot of weight on these fat ears.

I think we talked about this and the japanese original text was gender neutral, as it tends to be.

Tell me Sup Forums what is is she thinking and why is it so funny?

>Nice guy
>Dispose their bodies in a way they won't find and will be not able to get resurrected, thus tormenting their spirits so long until the dungeon is dungeoning anymore

So? They were criminals.

If he let them live, no guarantee they won't stalk them on the party way back or later and kill the party by proxy again for cash.

If he kill them, he could be ressurected and try to take revenge or do the same kill by proxy again for cash.

If he kill and destroy the body... problem solved.

the things I'd do to those ears

She sees your dick.

That /tg/ having major issue with kabru killing the stalking resurrecter party.

Surprisingly, it's full of moralfags

>leaving the souls of the dead criminals to endlessly wander the dungeon as ghosts and possibly killing even more people
Totally justified.

This elf likes to embellish her stories.
And we'll never know the truth, the only other witness is always absent.

Pic related

Go back to Sup Forums capefag

>Moralfag

Im a pragmantist. He could have earned a small fortune by killing them AND then bringing up the corpses if he was afraid of a backstab.

There is no logic behind his actions

He could've stashed their body somewhere hidden if they're still going deeper into the dungeon, and when they get back they can haul their bodies back to the surface and turn them in for a nice bounty.

Indeed, its rather shameful

Those guys deserved a complete death but I prefer to let the hangman earn his pay. They are criminals and their actions endanger the future of the dungeons completion, death a fitting punishment, just a matter of how many times and who makes it stick.

Usually we can trust a mangaka on not lying to us.

Obviously? They were thieves and murderers and the only reason they didn't do the same was they could get more money out of resurrecting people, hopefully to get them killed again.

...

Can elves use their ears as dildos?

Its not murder if you resurrect the other party

It certainly is murder. It's also theft if you return the object afterwards, especially if you collect a reward for it.

so pointy ears are a sign of beauty among elfs.
Good to know. And fat and round ears is probably what kid say to bully other kids.

It is still up in the air how much of that image is just a reference to old manga styles and how much is actually the elven ideal of beauty.

>He could have earned a small fortune by killing them AND then bringing up the corpses

See, you are the ones thinking with an evil purpose. You want him to kill them for personal gain. But he's not interested in that. He killed them for justice, for the sake of everyone else.
His methods may be a bit extreme, but he's working for the greater good.

>Evil purpose

Theres nothing evil about killing a criminal and making a buck while getting him resurrecred and jailed. Criminal gets a sentence based on the law and I make money which is a morally good option compared to "Criminal has to haunt and kill other adventurers for a small eternity"

There is no justice in his actions, hes a vigilante at best.

>but he's working for the greater good
He should also learn to fight monsters so he can be more of a benefit to actually completing the dungeon. I think the main reason why I don't like Kabru is that for all his bravado he's still dying some really dumb deaths in this dungeon. And his party is so enamored with him they only think along his lines and not for himself. No way he'll ever actually complete it, he should just go to the governor and request to become some police force within the dungeon or go full bounty hunter.

Even Laius' group is more individually capable than Kabru's. It's basically Kabru, the Kobold, and the mage who are carrying that team, the rest are dead weight.

it's not kidnapping if you release them afterwards. It's not assault if you bring them to the ER afterwards.
>and that is how the victim was beaten up. Does the defense have anything to say?
>Yes, the defendant can't be convicted because the injuries have already healed

you think making money by killing people is morally justified. Your sense of morality is messed up.
Kabru didn't kill them because he wanted to, but because he had to.
heh, fair enough. You should judge one's action for wht they are though, not by other actions of that same person.

Not that guy and I am a bit on the fence about it.
Murder is about ending a life, not about temporarily halting it - at least in our world.
I am not sure how a fictional world would define it. I remember Altered Carbon specifically differentiated between murder and REAL murder.

>you think making money by killing people is morally justified.
What else do you think a sold is?

>You should judge one's action for wht they are though
I don't like his actions though, or rather I don't like just dumping the bodies. Up until that point I was cool, but then he dumps the corpses and loots the bodies and I stop rooting for him.

His group's general uselessness just was the icing on the cake.

Murder is about ending ones life, ergo the charges shouldnt be murder if you resurrect him. He should be punished but charges should be something akin to voluntary manslaughter.

Making money from killing people is morally justified, thats why soldiers and such exist. Kabru didnt even had to kill them, at least permamently.

And like I said, killing a criminal,resurrecting him isnt something bad. Its a move where no one loses, everyone gains something: society deals with a criminal, criminal lives his sentence in a prison instead of rotting in a ditch and the 3rd party gets cash

>hes a vigilante at best.

eh, true, but then again, it's depend on whether the instrument of law in that particular region could be trusted.

So far we got the wealth loving governor where he is not evil but also not quite shown to be close to capable.

While Kabru should've give a chance for the law deal with them first, but if that fails, vigilante route it is.

soldiers don't exist to kill people, they exist to defend the interest of their nation. Killing people ione of the main ways they do it, but they are aid the same regardless of how many people they kill if any.

he doesn't temporarily halt their life. he doesn't place in suspended anymation or somethign of the sort. He actually kills them. Then he uses means to revert that action, but the murder has already happened. How it's considered from a legal point of view depends heavily on the eexact wording of the law. I doubt real world laws make provisions for resurrection.

>he doesn't place in suspended anymation or somethign of the sort.
In the real world, life is a process. While the brain is working, you are alive. When the brain stops working, the process called life is no more.
Killing somebody and bringing them back to the exact same state as before would count as temporarily halting their lives.

>I doubt real world laws make provisions for resurrection.
For a simple reason:
Resurrection is not real.

>soldiers don't exist to kill people, they exist to defend the interest of their nation.
And disposing of criminals is in the interest of the nation.

>Soldiers dont exist to kill people
Maybe in a peaceful western nation user, for a good part of history and most of the nations soldiers do exist for killing. Its their original purpose, to loot and pillage.

Its just that war isnt as profitable as it used to be

???
disposing of criminals is what kabru did. He didn't kill them to get money for himself, he did it for the interest of everyone.

no, it counts as killing them and then resurrecting them.
>resurrection is not real.
you're missing the point. I was replying to a post that said killing and resurrecting would not bring a sentence of murder in our world but of something like manslaughter. I said that it depends on how the law is worded exactly.

What you are forgetting is that while the body is dead, the soul lingers on. And the soul is conscious to a degree so the person killed in the dungeon is not in stasis, they are now in another state of being that is being tormented because it is chained to their rotting corpse.

Suspended animation as you are trying to compare it to how death works in this series, would require for all consciousness, spiritual and physical, to be halted for it to count. As it is, people still die and there is just the caveat that if you find enough of them you can heal the damage and bring them back.

They still died though. And what Kabru did was murder since the remaining deaths happened outside the window actions that could be considered self defense.

So it's a Jail for lifetime sentence.

>disposing of criminals is what kabru did.
So what's wrong with getting paid for it?

>it counts as killing them and then resurrecting them.
Not mutually exclusive.

>you're missing the point.
No, you are. You are bringing up real world laws to discuss a matter with completely different circumstances.

not quite. Killing was just the wasiest way to defeat an eemy. If they could capture them alive, maybe to sell them as slaves they were more than happy to do it. The act of killing itself was not what they existed for. Killing is the means by which they accomplish it.

>the soul lingers on.
So that would make it even less of a murder and more of a (potentially temporary) disembodiment.

>Suspended animation as you are trying to compare it to how death works in this series
I wasn't comparing it to the series though. I specifically opened up with "[i]n the real world".

you are confusing being part of an organization and being paid to enforce the peace even if it means killing someone and getting money from the act of killing itself, killing specifically in order to get money from it.

this would create some interesting scenarios where you can be condemned for multiple murders all for killing the same person multiple times.

>Killing was a main way to accomplish an objective
Ergo they were paid to kill, they were paid to do a thing for their employer which was killing.

The killing itself wasnt the goal but the means of attaining it which means they were paid to use the main way of achieving a goal

It's a prison in the magical sense yes. But I wouldnt characterize it as the kind of jail you use to shunt people like the the ressurection group into. This is a prison that has no sense of justice, everyone who dies inside the dungeon, or with a piece of the dungeon with them is bound to their mortal vessel. They will suffer no matter if they were just some noble minded adventurer, or some thieves on the run from the law.

Even the citizens of this kingdom are bound to the dungeon.

>So that would make it even less of a murder
If I kill someone by drowning them, then someone else comes along and performs CPR and they are revived did I kill anyone? Yes.
Just because you have the ability to bring someone back from the dead doesn't invalidate the actions that led to their deaths or the intent of the murderer.

>I wasn't comparing it to the series though
What you are trying to do is word the process of "temporarily halting" someones life to being the same as what heppens in the series correct? That sounds like you are saying that just because someone can turn the life switch "off" and later turn it back "on" with no gap in that person's consciousness that killing them isn't the same as murder.

I disagree and what you are describing is more akin to suspended animation than what really happens when a person's life functions cease and are later (and more quickly given how fast cells start to die in humans) resuscitated.

no, they were paid to fight a battle. If they could win it without killing a single person they would have the same pay. In fact it was more advantageous for them to capture rather than kill because they could sell them as slaves and earn more money. They are not paid by the kill.

>Beause the smug bitsh on the left has the pointiest ears of all
that's marsille's mom and i want to fuck her

>killing specifically in order to get money from it.
Like making your paycheck with bounties.
Those are a real thing.
Sure the pay-out is slightly different in that you earn your money by taking the criminal down, while the discussed method is about earning the money by raising them again.
But raising people is not an inherently immoral act, so I don't see the problem.

If anything, they could get sued for killing them in the first place, but that doesn't seem to be your problem.

>scenarios where you can be condemned for multiple murders all for killing the same person multiple times.

Considering the calmness of the resurrector party doing their shit, good chances are he done kill by proxy for profit before.

If he go to somesort of court, he could be sentenced for killing several party over and over again, while charging them for resurrection.

A resurrection scam, but since the victim could be very much could be alive. Is it murder?

>They were paid to fight
So you admit that they were paid to kill? Soldiers try to be lethal as possible for a reason, to kill the bugger in front of them. Winning a battle is killing much as you can.

>theyre not paid by the kill
not true, in many societies soldiers advanced through ranks by having merit in a battle. Most common example are the romans

>If I kill someone by drowning them,
Not the point.
If you kill somebody and they're gone, that's different from when you kill somebody and they linger on.
When you kill somebody and they might linger on but you make sure that their souls are doomed to suffer until the turn into vengeful spirits and they will never be raised again, that's total murder.

>What you are trying to do is word the process of "temporarily halting" someones life to being the same as what heppens in the series correct?
Wrong.

>That sounds like you are saying that just because someone [] turn[s] the life switch "off" and later turn[s] it back "on" with no gap in that person's consciousness
That counts as temporarily halting their lives.
>that killing them isn't the same as murder.
And that murder might need to be redefined in a universe where resurrection is so common that lots of people aren't scared of death at all.

Basically the difference is Concensus.

If community deemed group a to be killable, then is not considered crime to kill group a in that community.

bounties paid people for capturig people dead OR alive. And often paid more if you captured them alive. Again the point of them was not the killing but the removal of a threat from society.
And furthermore I don't see what point you're trying to make. I never said that killing for money doesn't exist, I said that it makes one evil.

>bounties paid people for capturig people dead OR alive.
So they did pay you for killing them.

Just because you could also become a carpenter and never pick up a weapon in your life does not the negate the existence of an option whereby you pick a career that offers you regular use of a weapon.

>I said that it makes one evil.
But why, in a society where death is not permanent, unless you go to lengths to make sure that it is?

Yes, we know, the dark elf is the sorcerer, he is a male.

Reminder that they'll purge the filthy orcs.

i read that Dark elf is refered in non gender pronoun and translators translate it as he.

>Not the point.
Well since you cut off the second part of that sentence is no wonder you forgot what my point was. My point is if you kill somebody with the intention of ending their life and later on somebody can come by and resurrect them that is still murder.

>Well since you cut off the second part of that sentence is no wonder you forgot what my point was.
Oh I did read it to the end. It just missed the point, so I only quoted the part that made it obvious.

>My point is if you kill somebody with the intention of ending their life and later on somebody can come by and resurrect them that is still murder.
And it missed the point that I made.
But on your new topic, I would say that it's a weaker murder.
I think we should just make a hierarchy.

Total murder tier:
>you completely erase somebody's existence
Murder tier:
>you put somebody into limbo and leave it up to chance if a third party moves them on to the afterlife
>you send somebody directly to the afterlife, with no chance of returning to life
Highly immoral/attempted murder tier
>you put somebody into a post-death experience, and leave it up to chance if a third party returns them back to life or to the afterlife.
Not real murder tier:
>you put somebody into a post-death experience and ensure that they will be returned to life at a later point

"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."

>Farlyn became the [s]water[/s] monster
>Cabron's party wants to kill monsters

I'd laugh if they asked about the stolen treasures, and heard that Laius' party ate them

they paid for removing the threat, not for the specific way they did it.

>in a society where death is not permanent,
causing pain to others is not permanent either, but you wouldn't consider one who causes pain or damange to others,without their consent, for personal gain as not evil, would you?

>causing pain to others is not permanent either,
And it's not punished as severely as murder, for some reason.
Why do you think that is?

I can imagine they referred to the sorcerer gender-neutrally when they still have not met.
But what about after they did?
And also during the portrait eating chapter?

>It just missed the point,
then I don't know what your point is because I've addressed the idea that temporarily killing somebody is still killing somebody.

Whether or not you ensure that their Resurrection can occur is a separate matter.

>then I don't know what your point is because I've addressed the idea that temporarily killing somebody is still killing somebody.
The point was that if we define life as your soul activity which continues even after the body dies in Dungeon Meshi, then life does not fully end with corporal death.
I was referring to >the soul is conscious to a degree so the person killed in the dungeon is not in stasis,

because causing pain is not murder. Killing someone is
japanese has gender neutral pronouns, so it doesn't matter if they know or not

Satisfying, disappointing and horrifying at the same time.
Why this did not happen during shampoo time is still a mystery, though.