The King and the Bargainer -- A Philosophical Analysis of Mr. John Duran's Story (The King's Saga)
Updated: May 12
Introduction
The following is an analysis of Mr. John Duran's second chapter of "The King's Saga", following the moral mismanagement of a psychotic tyrant towards his subjects. Thus far, Mr. Duran's saga teaches us on the importance of not having psychopaths in charge of large-scale organizations, for the suffering of their followers is one that is capable of bringing them joy. And, in the absence of morality, these horrible leaders can actively seek the constant pleasure, found in the many of forms of oppression.
The first chapter teaches us on the political importance of others not knowing who you really are, deep inside. That is because it's important to rule the narrative of what is seen as the truth, and not what the truth actually is. Therefore, it teaches us that it may be beneficial for us to lie, in order to maintain our interest to remain in power.
The actual document of the second chapter can be found below. Furthermore, you may leave a review on the platform in which both chapters were originally published.
The King and the Bargainer -- Part 1 Analysis: The Court of the Commoners
The first chapter of the saga's second part teaches us the importance of maintaining the illusion of a good public image. It further highlights the importance of deceiving others, by pretending that you truly care for them. When people feel that you care for them, they would be more compelled to be loyal to you. Even if it's a mere feeling, not based on reality, that feeling can be powerful enough to make people respect your authority as their leader.
The psychotic king doesn't really care about the wellbeing of his subjects, and even confesses to the readers, us, that he doesn't really take it seriously. However, he is intelligent enough to understand the importance of demonstration over mere statements. Illusions can be reinforced when their maker demonstrates them as being factual, rather than mere confessions of false honesty.
Therefore, every once in a while, the King conducts the Court of the Commoners event, where he listens to the pleas and cries of the subjects in which are to him nothing more than playthings. Of course, when such a leader directly listens to your words, why would you think he doesn't care about you? And that is how you socially engineer an entire populace to think you truly care about them.
Why don't we trust our contemporary politicians? Whether or not they truly care for us, they don't necessarily demonstrate that they do. They won't necessarily show empathy to us, nor compassion. In the absence of demonstration of a humane character, that character can easily be opposed and rebelled, thus weakening one's public trust in them.
And understand this: The point of this is to make your followers not question your ulterior motives. When we refuse to work on ourselves, to become better people, all we're left to do is to deceive: To show and reinforce the collective delusion, that we are already moral beings, and thus require no actual self-work of moral character.
And to present his highly-moral, highly-royal public image, the king allows much generosity in that court, which he allows once per week:
Everyone is allowed, friend or foe alike.
Full diplomatic and criminal immunity during the audience given by the King.
"They shall neither be apprehended or interfered with during their comings or goings on that day (unless they are actively committing an offense right then and there)".
In part two, we even learn that you don't have to reveal your true identity.
The King actively makes irresistible benefits for anyone who chooses to have their two-minute audience with him. That includes, even, a certain serial killer, who actively kills off the King's enforcers in the woods. The audience he gives to the criminal Bouchard shows us that he has a great moral understanding of leadership. However, he uses that understanding as nothing more than a tool to keep the populace loyal and in line.
For him, moral behavior is nothing more than a means to an end, and not something to aspire to as an end. However, the mere presentation of behavior indicating otherwise, is how he makes the populace not only fear his rule, but also to admire it.
The King could've executed the criminal right here and there, in his own court, surrounded by his guards. However, he is smart enough to not act on petty emotions. After all, the criminal did not make any offense during his audience, and thus, deserved criminal immunity just like anyone else. Ironically, despite the King's devilishly corrupt nature, he was smart enough to not act upon it.
See how acting on our own temptations, goes against justice. The King teaches us that moral behavior is done by overcoming our emotions, and even our own personality. By being impulsive and filterless, we ruin morality. Thoughtless freedom is therefore how we can unintentionally ruin our best intentions, and contradict our own ethical code, rendering us hypocrites.
Of course one's followers would be far less loyal to you, if you chose to be a hypocrite, and act upon mere emotion. Our own conditions and rules can be broken by our own impulsivity. And if we break them, why would anyone else desire not breaking them? When the social contract is demolished from the very beginning, it becomes worthless to adhere to. One therefore must follow the very contract they created, regardless of how they are. Psychopaths or otherwise.
And as such, I theorize that the criminal in question died after his audience with the tyrant, eventually...
Part 2 and 3 Analysis -- Encountering the Bargainer (Spoilers)
Next in the court of commoners, comes a mysterious man, the self-proclaimed bargainer...
"Your Highness, sometimes discretion is far more useful than public display, so I have here a special note, for your eyes only, and if you read it yourself without another pair of eyes, you will immediately understand why I use such a method to make this bargain crystal-clear to you and only you."
"Bargainer I take it you are quite serious about this offer? You realize the enormity of this choice, the consequences and what has to happen correct?"
"Yes Sire, since I wrote it, I know exactly what it entails. Do you accept my bargain under the listed terms Your Highness?"
The bargainer offered a very strange exchange: He desires to know the King for whom he truly is. In exchange, the bargainer is to be executed. This strange and dangerous deal is the ultimate example of how truth-seeking is sacrifice.
The bargainer got what he wanted, for the King, although morally depraved, understands the importance of fulfilling deals and contracts with others, for his long-term rule and collective abuse.
Furthermore, the King did want him to die. After all, he derives sadistic pleasure from harming others. The King already knew he was going to enjoy delivering his end of the bargain. After all, when someone knows the truth, he could use it against you. Therefore, the truth becomes not only a refreshing relevation, but a dangerous, powerful weapon.
During their meeting, held in four eyes only, the bargainer admitted something of his own... He was, in fact, his son. The Prince. And like his father, he was intelligent as well as cunning. However, the difference between them, is that the son chose the path of good, and the father, the path of evil.
The Prince already came up with a plan to overthrow his psychotic father. Deep inside, the Prince already had a gut feeling of his father's cruel nature. As such, the Prince came prepared:
He already planted the seeds of a rebellion, spreading the truth before confirming it. He wanted to confirm the truth, before dying.
He executed himself to deprave his father the joy of murdering him, thus ruining the deal.
The Prince died a happy man, for he knew he did the right thing: Sacrificing his own life on the altar of good. He died for the sins of his remorseless father. He did whatever he could, and won. A rebellion might emerge, and the King might be overthrown.
Suicide... is rarely seen as good in contemporary times. We see the suicidal as these mentally unstable, mentally ill people. But what if it isn't entirely the case? What if suicide can be done morally? Would you, then, consider the suicidal, mentally ill, with no stable understanding of reality? If you catch a grenade during battle, so your comrades in arms wouldn't die... Then, you are deemed a hero. However, that is a form of suicide: You actively seek to dispose of yourself, so others wouldn't die.
Suicide, therefore, can have a moral ground. It is the moral ground even the King was intelligent enough to realize. For having such an intelligent son, he was actually proud of him.
And whether we use morality as a means to an end, or as the higher end, we must understand that morality requires intelligence.
On that word, his head fell to the table,and his body slumped over, and the bargainer was gone by his own doing. This was my only son, and his own guile made me proud at that moment. I guess it truly does run in the blood.
Finally, I had a gold-plated plaque placed upon the doors as well, "Here lies the Bargainer, the King's only son with the deviousness of a prince. May he find his rest, for he certainly has earned it"
Ms. Tamara Moskal's Review
The analysis by Mr. Tomasio delves into the question of when suicide can be considered morally acceptable. Martyrdom is the obvious example of an ethical suicide, but can suicide for revenge be considered martyrdom? I read Mr. Duran's story with interest, and I enjoyed the "opponent" style, as it was written from the perspective of the narcissistic King.
The vengeance of the Bargainer, his Son, was ruthless and worth the King, yet I wish he would poison his Father and (optional) himself instead. There is no guarantee that the evil King will be overthrown or that the letter proving the spite of the King will be effective in turning his subject against him.
The story left me powerless as the King appeared proud of his Son rather than remorseful or despairing. Yet, I also understand that the Son didn't have a better option than to commit suicide, as he was a traitor in his Father's eyes and would not be forgiven. For the sake of the story's morality, I wish Son's plan succeeds and the Bargain's sacrifice was not in vain. Thank you for sharing, Mr. Tomasio.
