Chapter One Piece Chapter 1194 Discussion

[HolyLord]

Do you criticise people for saying: "I lost a teeth"?
"1. Actually no, your teeth fell."

Come off it man, lol.
This is just semantics, we know it was abolished, lost is simply just a summary, and to be honest, the WG didn't want to get rid of it, they were forced into it via voting, so one could say the essentially lost it.



Okay, so where did I say otherwise.. ?

This might be my first engagement with you, and potentially the last if this is how you post, lol.

If you know it was abolished and replaced by the Seraphim, why are you presenting it as a loss of power?

About Bonney, i didn't say she was the only one. you listed losing Bonney as evidence that the WG is desperate for. and you didn't explain anywhere how exactly losing her support your claim.

Also, you didn’t answer my third question: are you talking about what happened 14 years ago or what’s happening now?

 

[Hannibal Psyche]

If you know it was abolished and replaced by the Seraphim, why are you presenting it as a loss of power?

About Bonney, i didn't say she was the only one. you listed losing Bonney as evidence that the WG is desperate for. and you didn't explain anywhere how exactly losing her support your claim.

Also, you didn’t answer my third question: are you talking about what happened 14 years ago or what’s happening now?

How is it not a loss in power?
Abolishing the Shichibukai is not a loss in power?
Replacing something that could have been an addition to power.. how is that not a loss?
It's like swapping $100 for $100... why not keep both and have $200... so how is no longer having the Shichibukai not a loss of power?
The word loss can have multiple and different meanings in context, so again, you're being pedantic for nothing.
Words can have different meanings in different contexts.

And I didn't say Bonney is why the Government is desperate, I listed a multitude of factors that compound together to make the WG desperate for power.
It's like you read someone explain why WW2 happened, one of the things they list is "Poverty"... you proceed to say explain how Poverty caused WW2? They listed multiple things, it's not just 1 thing. That's why it's a list of things that resulted in said outcome.
What did I do here? I listed multiple things that factored/played a role in the WG's desperation.
For someone so pedantic and about details, you seem to miss the forest for the trees.
Pacifista are one of the most important military assets of the WG - they take them in every mission.
That is a loss in power too because it has become an unreliable weapon - Bonney shows up out of nowhere and orders Pacifista to disobey WG commands? That's a problem. They have shaky miliary, a huge weak spot and can be easily exploited. I didn't think this needed to be explained, but okay.

As for the 3rd question, there are outcomes that we can reasonably predict even without seeing the conclusion yet, we know Luffy won't die this arc, the story ends. Can the same be done about the WG acquiring Elbaph's army? We can make a reasonable guess, and that's no, they're narratively almost bound to fail. With that said, it should be obvious if I mean now or 14 years ago.

Your comment really rubbed me the wrong way "no they didn't lose it, they abolished it"... like abolishing an asset is not a loss? Okay.
Yeah, depending on how you respond, this will 100% be my last response to you. Maybe you don't realise how you come across, and if that's the case, good day to you.

 

[HolyLord]

How is it not a loss in power?
Abolishing the Shichibukai is not a loss in power?
Replacing something that could have been an addition to power.. how is that not a loss?
It's like swapping $100 for $100... why not keep both and have $200... so how is no longer having the Shichibukai not a loss of power?
The word loss can have multiple and different meanings in context, so again, you're being pedantic for nothing.
Words can have different meanings in different contexts.

And I didn't say Bonney is why the Government is desperate, I listed a multitude of factors that compound together to make the WG desperate for power.
It's like you read someone explain why WW2 happened, one of the things they list is "Poverty"... you proceed to say explain how Poverty caused WW2? They listed multiple things, it's not just 1 thing. That's why it's a list of things that resulted in said outcome.
What did I do here? I listed multiple things that factored/played a role in the WG's desperation.
For someone so pedantic and about details, you seem to miss the forest for the trees.
Pacifista are one of the most important military assets of the WG - they take them in every mission.
That is a loss in power too because it has become an unreliable weapon - Bonney shows up out of nowhere and orders Pacifista to disobey WG commands? That's a problem. They have shaky miliary, a huge weak spot and can be easily exploited. I didn't think this needed to be explained, but okay.

As for the 3rd question, there are outcomes that we can reasonably predict even without seeing the conclusion yet, we know Luffy won't die this arc, the story ends. Can the same be done about the WG acquiring Elbaph's army? We can make a reasonable guess, and that's no, they're narratively almost bound to fail. With that said, it should be obvious if I mean now or 14 years ago.

Your comment really rubbed me the wrong way "no they didn't lose it, they abolished it"... like abolishing an asset is not a loss? Okay.
Yeah, depending on how you respond, this will 100% be my last response to you. Maybe you don't realise how you come across, and if that's the case, good day to you.

Your $100 + $100 analogy assumes that keeping both systems would simply add their power together without complications. That’s precisely what you need to justify. The Shichibukai were independent pirates cooperating under an agreement, with their own interests and a demonstrated risk of betrayal, Blackbeard being an obvious example. Counting them as a straightforward addition to the Seraphim ignores those problems. Why does replacing that arrangement establish a loss of power?

Regarding Bonney, your WWII analogy answers an argument I never made. I didn’t claim she had to explain their desperation on her own. I asked how losing her contributed to it. Putting something in a list doesn’t do the explaining for you. You’ve now explained your reasoning: she can override their commands to the Pacifista. Fair enough. But could they address that vulnerability by modifying the command hierarchy with York's help, or by targeting Bonney herself? And if reliability matters here, it also matters when you count the Shichibukai as additional military power.

As for Elbaph, are you referring specifically to Loki rejecting recruitment? If so, how does failing to recruit Loki establish that they’ve failed to recruit Elbaph’s army? What makes you assume recruiting him would bring the giants with him, given their hostility toward him? If you’re instead predicting that the current operation will fail, then “they have failed” presents your prediction as an established outcome.

That’s the second time you’ve announced this might be your last reply while taking personal digs at me. If you want a civil discussion, apply that standard to your own replies too.

 

[Battle Wolf]

That’s the second time you’ve announced this might be your last reply while taking personal digs at me. If you want a civil discussion, apply that standard to your own replies too.

Welcome to the fanclub, you're not the first and neither the last.