If you found this would you use it? If so, then on who and why? Would you use it to gain power or live a peaceful life?

I would use that motherfucker to high hell.

Attached: 1537563952117.jpg (1080x1920, 227K)

>Implying you wouldn't get a god complex while doing so
Wasn't that sort of the point of the story? How even noble intentions can be warped by power? Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Just one name, mine

Aw, come on user, don't be like that. We like you at least!

Light had the fucked up god complex from the beginning, he wasn't "warped" into it. As a comparison, Lelouch remained good the entire time through Code Geass. So did Naruto and Deku (Midoriya) from other anime, Spider-man, Batman, and so on. How one uses power depends on the person, and with great power must come great responsibility. It is the duty of those who have to help those who have-not.

everyone except my parents and cute girls would be dead

I'm not sure how I could use it to benefit me directly financially, but I would probably blast thousands of motherfuckers off of the Youtube comments section every day.

While I accept your counterpoints (especially the Spider-Man one, how could I have missed an obvious one like that), I still hold the view that power and self-righteousness aren't a good combination and do not mix. A person in a position of power who is also self righteous (like Light) will always assume that they are correct, and will have the power to carry out what they think is the correct course of action. It is very difficult to convince these people that what they are doing is wrong, even if the majority sees their actions as dangerous and irresponsible. This is the main reason I dislike the character Eren from SnK/AoT, as he tends to act in this manner, with little to no regard for those affected by his actions.

I'd go about life as usual, only killing people who actually pose a threat to my tranquil lifestyle, like rude neighbours and coworkers (in accidents of course), and politicians who instigate unpleasant changes. I wouldn't tell anyone about it, or entertain any conversation about it if the subject happened to be brought up. However, I'd also kill controversial people just to ease my mind.

I wouldn't take the shinigami eye deal.

would just kill off really bad cunts, and figure out a way to get myself rich using it

All of your grandchildren would be the product of incestuous relations, and humanity would die out within just a few generations (unless you use sperm banks or something). Great planning there user.

You need to know their name and face for it to work user.

So if good people aren't supposed to have power because they can be corrupted by it, then what are they supposed to do? Just sit around and jerk off while less scrupulous people who DO have access to power engage in corrupt actions anyway? Or are you suggesting some sort of anarchic situation? Even in the latter scenario, someone has power, and when they exert it, they should do so for the right reasons, rather than selfish and corrupt ones.

checked
Sorry, replied to you here:

No, of course I expect good people to have some power, but I also expect a decentralized system of checks and balances to be put into place so that one person is not in charge of everything. That's just putting all your eggs in one basket, and hierarchies are a necessary evil at best. I also expect those in power to not have preconceived notions about what is always right and wrong, or have black/white or us/them morality, and be humble and open to change, but also stick to their core principles, which can evolve as they are put to the test in the real world. I should also remind you that historically, most cases where one person or family has gained most of the power have led to situations where a dictator/despot controls everything, even in the case of Communism, which was ostensibly started with arguably good intentions.

What about when the checks and balances become at best inefficient and incompetent towards facilitating good, at worst an active threat that engages in evil actions themselves? Our current government has checks and balances and look where that got us, our politicians are all ignorant spineless, and corrupt and in the pockets of the ultra-rich/lobbyists.

I'd fantasize about how I'd manipulate people online who have hurt my feelings in the past to give me their names and faces, so that I could give them extreme deaths, but I've never been able to be spiteful, in reality, and just feel bad and go away when someone's mean.

Making money with a death note is as easy as creating a .onion

"Welcome to my edgy dark net website.
I will kill people for one bitcoin and make it look like an accident.
All you need to do is provide their full name and a clear photo of their face"

I would argue that we as a nation are in the sorry state we are in precisely because power has been concentrated into the hands of a few rich individuals and organizations, who are able to pay off politicians to keep them in their pockets (more akin to an oligarchy than a republic). Despite the system of checks and balances being slower to enact change than a single ruler, I still believe that it forces a necessary dialogue when new laws are passed, so that more people can voice their opinions and be heard. This country was founded on freedom of thought, the most paramount of all our freedoms. I can almost guarantee to you that most of us would be significantly worse off under any sort of dictatorship. Generally, the more of the populace that has a say, the better off things are for them as a whole.

checked
Same here user. Same here.

Say hello to FBI chan for me if you do this user, will ya?

I would just kill all politicians, queen, maybe some people I hate online

Do we get an infinite amount of pages? Always wondered if it can run out of pages to write on.

But yes I would use it and I would use it to kill off politicians that is destroying their own countries. I can understand that some have different opinions and respect that but when one or several politicians goes against the majority of the people and force their views upon the majority against their will, I would be there to stop them.

>As a comparison, Lelouch remained good the entire time through Code Geass.
Because he knew he wasn't "good" and literally became a cruel, vicious dictator toward the end of the story.

That was a deception so that the world could move on without him. He served as a scapegoat, dying with a smile on his face, even keeping himself from feeling love or attachment, all for the sake of the greater good. Read between the lines.
If the public was enlightened, sure, maybe they could do a better job. But for right now they're not, so it's up to some of us to do the right thing where others are unable or unwilling to.
If you have the ability to do the right thing, but you don't, the bad things happen because of you, not in spite of you. It is the job of those who can see a better future to help others, so that they say see what we can see, and ideally they will come around but even if they don't, still we must act.

Attached: no you move.jpg (267x189, 13K)

>That was a deception so that the world could move on without him. He served as a scapegoat, dying with a smile on his face, even keeping himself from feeling love or attachment, all for the sake of the greater good.
Yes yes, but Lelouch was self-aware from the get go that he was doing terrible things. He made this abundantly clear multiple times and it can't simply be hand-waved. Good intentions alone won't change things, you have to have the will to do what is necessary to get things done, even if it means being a huge prick. Really goes beyond good and evil.

I don't agree that he did "terrible things". He did the overall right thing, and his actions had an overall net positive, so his actions were good. I understand that sometimes methods will be questionable, but in the pursuit of good, such is to be expected when evil has everything to work with at its disposal. The world isn't a fairy-tale, but the goal is still to help people, and that he did, so I support his actions.

no, the rules clearly state that if you use it, you can't enter heaven.
once i'd picked it up, seen the shinigami and thus confirmed it's real, you'd have to be a fucking idiot to then damn yourself to purgatory forever.
nothing on earth you could achieve by killing is worth that.

Attached: Rules_II.jpg (649x1024, 81K)

It would be interesting but after people dying from a heart attacks I think I would have to get creative and make new stuff as for who probably all the political party that currently runs my country as for why they are planning a war and chances are I'll be in it

I would either have it and not use it, giving me a god power-trip for my whole life, or spend as much time as humanely possible killing people with random names I think of, in the most absurd way.

That's the utilitarian standpoint, the same one Light subscribed to and he was also right. But within CG, Charles and Schneizel also subscribed to it, differing in principles and the desired end result but ultimately believing it was for the best.

>have the opportunity to make all the "trips decides who dies" threads real
>form an assassination cult based on repeating digits

Attached: 1526655126462.jpg (256x679, 30K)

Our views may perhaps be too different to be reconciled.
>It's up to some of us to do the right thing where others are unable or unwilling to.
As Socrates the kid diddler would ask, what exactly is "the right thing" to do? How do we decide this? Is it simply the will of the majority? Is it what the Christian god or the government has decreed to be moral? Is it what you yourself have decided is ethical? Is it just the path that is believed to alleviate the most suffering? Or is it something else entirely? Let me walk through each scenario, and provide counters for each. The first, I sense you already disagree with, but nevertheless, please allow a rebuttal. If the majority of a populace wanted to kill every Jew in the country, as in WWII, would that make it right? No, of course not! That is why we live in a Republic, with majority rules, but minority rights. People cannot be stripped of their most basic of human rights (unless they commit a henious crime/deprive another of their human rights, but I'm also against the death penalty, but I digress). So the majority does not in fact truly have the final say on what is "right". Moving on to the next case, if a god's rules outline the path that we should follow, then why do different cultures each have their own interpretations of those rules. It is far more likely that these rules were created by early rulers to keep large populations in check. If these rules are truly infalliable, then why do they keep changing? Eating shellfish and using mixed fabrics was forbidden in the Bible, but I do not know many Christians who still abide by these rules. Laws also change based on the will of the populace, and so are not a good way to determine what is "right", they are the result of such discussions.

As for saying that what is right is what you have decide is ethical: I am a vegan. Would you want me to impose my morality into you because I think killing and eating animals is wrong? We may believe something is immoral, but asking others to change their behaviour to accommodate your morals is a more complex matter. We evidently have different takes on what is or isn't moral. Ethics, on the other hand, are largely determined by society. Now on to the last point, that what is right is the path of least suffering. Again, who decides which path will lead to the least suffering. And what if they turn out to be wrong? People also have the right to make their own choices. A government cannot and should not treat its citizens like children, or set up a nanny state. Freedom of choice is not a right that I will easily give up. So since all of these ways of determining what is right at flawed, I propose that the way laws are formed, is basically by a sort of social contract. People do not want to suffer, so they agree not to do things that (most) of them seem wrong, such as murder and theft. But they only do this for things that virtually all of them do not want to happen. Otherwise, people are too different to be ruled by one same set of specific laws. We are not ants, after all. The best way to see what the majority wants, while retaining the rights of the minority, is with a decentralized system of checks and balances, not through a centralized dictatorship.

I've never watched that show but afaik you just write a name into it and the person dies right? No side effects, no down sides? Yes I would use that. There's some people in my life I can do without. That histrionic ASPD fat bitch at work, for example.

>If you have the ability to do the right thing, but you don't, the bad things happen because of you, not in spite of you.
Do you really believe this? Have you truly given it any thought? The trolley problem: a trolley is speeding down a track, and is about to run over five people tied to the track. A switch to divert the trolley and kill one person is within arms reach from you. Would you pull the switch, and actively murder one person to save five? Or would you not do anything, and let the five die? Has this happened "because of you"? Too easy? What if five people each need a different new organ? Would you take the organs from a healthy person and kill one to save five? Utilitarianism has its limits, and so does Denotology. If ethics and morality were so simple that one person could decide what is best for everyone else, then we would not be arguing over the subject for millennia. What Spider-man does is above and beyond the call of duty. He has no duty to act, but does so anyway, partially out of guilt, but also because he wants to use his powers for good. There is perhaps also an aspect of psychological egoism to his altruism (and thrill seeking), but I still have faith that he is a generally good person.

>that quote
While I admire Cap's refusal to compromise his morals, what if we put the shoe on the other foot? What if an Islamic Terrorist refused to back down on jihad and sharia law? What if a vegan went around burning down factory farms? Is this a trait to be celebrated? We live in a society (haha) where we must accomodate each others sometimes very different outlooks on life, and try to preserve rights for all. If citizens feel threatened by the actions of super powered vigilantes, then those vigilantes must be held accountable for the damage they cause, if not preemtively, by preventing them from causing damage and casualties in the first place, then after the fact with monetary compensation (very steep fines), and perhaps even jailtime. Cap realized this at the end of Civil War (in the comics), which is why he surrendered in the end.

I would use it to kill off every single world leader on the same day at the same exact time. The world would be reborn after that day.

And you think the replacements will be better instead of worse?

If they weren't then I'd kill them too, eventually they'd learn.

Read the manga, there is no afterlife. Which brings an interesting perspective on matters.

tl;dr I value freedom and the core values of the republic (majority rule and minority rights, as set out by the social contract) above all, even over avoidance of suffering. I would rather suffer as a result of my own choices than live in a gilded cage (of course, I cannot will what I will, but that is another matter). Leaders must listen to their populace, as that is their primary function. It's what they signed up for in a democracy.
>It is the job of those who can see a better future to help others, so that they say see what we can see, and ideally they will come around but even if they don't, still we must act.
In response to this I shall leave you with one of my favorite lolbertarian quotes:
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"
-Frederic Bastiat, The Law

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil