Death Parade Episode 1 Discussion

Celestrial2 said:
she did cheat

Epicenter said:



I don't see it that way at all. The point of my post was that morals and ethics are based on human constructs, society has decided these things. He calls out the disdain for infidelity between married couples as if the importance of it is due to what we perceive as right and wrong forced down by society and he thinks that is "absurd", yet he seems to care for concepts of deadly sins and unforgivable crimes which too just like infidelity are concepts we create and care about. If we're going down the rabbit hole of disregarding things simply because its a societal concept, than this whole anime is pointless and so are his thoughts on deadly sins and crimes, we decide what are sins and crime just as much as we decide that infidelity between married couples is severe.

Satire said:

Societal biases aside, companionship is something that every animal seeks, humans included. It can be for the sole sake of reproduction, or it can be for the sake of animals wanting to be with their own kind naturally. In the case of adultery, the problem lies in the fact that you're having an affair and have full knowledge about it. You're betraying the trust of another. You know it's wrong, but you've done it anyway. There's malice there. It's not an unforgivable crime, nor did I imply that it was, so I have no idea why you would pull that out of the blue. A boyfriend/girlfriend cheating is not as severe as a spouse cheating. Both aren't stellar scenarios, but you go through more steps to be married to someone and thus cheating on them is worse.


He sent her to hell because she set herself up for that route. Her actions, in actuality, were kind. Although at face value it seems as if she says a lot of cruel things, they are not cruel. In fact, they're more of a blessing for the husband. Look at him. He's a broken person. He killed himself, his wife, and his unborn child. They both know it because they both saw the flashback. Now think about it. If it turned out that he caused their deaths and she was not cheating on him, the amount of guilt he would feel would be insurmountable. She gives him an out and relieves some of his guilt. Decim doesn't seem to know their past, because if he did, he would have sent the woman to be reincarnated. Decim judges them on what they say and do. The implications of what she said would have indirectly caused their deaths, which puts her at more fault than her husband.


Sure, there are differences. But none of which you cover in your original quote other than men being physically stronger biologically. Saying that women are more likely to use words is based on how they are supposed to act based on society's standards and their role(s) in it. Women are generally more passive and focus less on physical strength because of societal gender roles. Men, in our society, are supposed to be that role. If we were in a more natural, primitive state, let's say the caveman age, I'm certain things would not be the same.


She does admit it... That's what her whole "cruel" speech was about. Whether she's telling the truth or not is up to the audience to decide. There's far more evidence to suggest that she was not cheating on him though. In case you didn't know, people tend to want to be right. The husband is obviously not thinking logically. If she says she cheated on him and never loved him, which he had been thinking since they got married, then why wouldn't he feel inclined to believe her? If she did in fact cheat on him, then his suspicions would have been justified. He would have been right to suspect her, and thus the weight of his actions are lessened by the fact that she was a terrible person all along and strung him along.

Makaze_no_Moujuu said:


" You seem to be trying to go into the direction that loyalty in relationships is some bs human construct demanded, but the same can be said about people expecting others not to kill people, rape kids and all the things we consider wrong."

" All morals, ethics and such things are based on societies beliefs and standards."

You answered your own question.

ikramit said:
A really good concept and for the most part executed on it very well the two characters arcs were very good I would say however some of Takashi's reactions were to overplayed and his discovery of infidelity contrived when compared with the flow of the rest of the eps.

Apart from that the visual were great and the music was used well I especially like the ironic opening song.

As for Machiko cheating I think it's clear that she did cheat on her husband but only after he started acting differently after hearing the infidelity gossip there are several pointers to this the first being the flashback, those were not the memories of someone acting out a role they are very clearly the memories of someone in love however the flash back only applies to events including her getting pregnant before their marriage nothing after the wedding day is show which is significant .

Then there’s the fact that when Takashi mentioned that he had found out about her supposed betrayal he did not go into any details about the incident itself this is show when she is surprised when her friends nickname is mentioned she then gives an explanation that perfectly answers his doubts so much so that I don’t think that it could be a lie, even if she was a good liar she’s not physic but we also see that after the wedding day Takashi behaver changes dramatically.


As for her outburst I see it as half a truth as she said the man she loved was not him but the man he had acted as before his discovery this is not so subtlety show when we see her image of Takashi before the weeding flash over his screaming freak out. Then we get another flash back just before her outburst of her in bed with a another man checking his phone.



Her angry and spite got the better of her and she allows him to sink into the nightmare he seems so set on embracing she did love him at one point but not anymore
Overall a very good episode I’m look forward to what’s next.

Satire said:

Societal biases aside, companionship is something that every animal seeks, humans included. It can be for the sole sake of reproduction, or it can be for the sake of animals wanting to be with their own kind naturally. In the case of adultery, the problem lies in the fact that you're having an affair and have full knowledge about it. You're betraying the trust of another. You know it's wrong, but you've done it anyway. There's malice there. It's not an unforgivable crime, nor did I imply that it was, so I have no idea why you would pull that out of the blue. A boyfriend/girlfriend cheating is not as severe as a spouse cheating. Both aren't stellar scenarios, but you go through more steps to be married to someone and thus cheating on them is worse.

Satire said:

He sent her to hell because she set herself up for that route. Her actions, in actuality, were kind. Although at face value it seems as if she says a lot of cruel things, they are not cruel. In fact, they're more of a blessing for the husband. Look at him. He's a broken person. He killed himself, his wife, and his unborn child. They both know it because they both saw the flashback. Now think about it. If it turned out that he caused their deaths and she was not cheating on him, the amount of guilt he would feel would be insurmountable. She gives him an out and relieves some of his guilt. Decim doesn't seem to know their past, because if he did, he would have sent the woman to be reincarnated. Decim judges them on what they say and do. The implications of what she said would have indirectly caused their deaths, which puts her at more fault than her husband.

Satire said:

Sure, there are differences. But none of which you cover in your original quote other than men being physically stronger biologically. Saying that women are more likely to use words is based on how they are supposed to act based on society's standards and their role(s) in it. Women are generally more passive and focus less on physical strength because of societal gender roles. Men, in our society, are supposed to be that role. If we were in a more natural, primitive state, let's say the caveman age, I'm certain things would not be the same.

Satire said:

She does admit it... That's what her whole "cruel" speech was about. Whether she's telling the truth or not is up to the audience to decide. There's far more evidence to suggest that she was not cheating on him though. In case you didn't know, people tend to want to be right. The husband is obviously not thinking logically. If she says she cheated on him and never loved him, which he had been thinking since they got married, then why wouldn't he feel inclined to believe her? If she did in fact cheat on him, then his suspicions would have been justified. He would have been right to suspect her, and thus the weight of his actions are lessened by the fact that she was a terrible person all along and strung him along.

Makaze_no_Moujuu said:


Decim does no about these people's lives; the OVA blatantly implies it, twice.

1) He knew the old man was going to win the game of pool, if everything went smoothly, because he knew the old man was a beastly, and champion, pool player.

2) In the series first ep, he protects Machiko from Takashi because he knew she was defenseless. In the OVA, he let the players fight it out, and is in fact unmoved by the fight; this implies that he knew that old man could defend himself.

This episode also implies it because NOTHING in the memories of Machiko made her look like a horrible woman, which is why he's shock when Machiko suddenly released and evil cackle. Meanwhile, he shows NO emotion in regards to Takashi's breakdowns, because it was expect givin the insecurity, jealousy, and paranoia he display in those memories.

Also, the Void isn't automatically a bad thing, and Reincarnation is either or, but in Buddhism is normally seen as a bad thing.

Makaze_no_Moujuu said:
I agree with practically all of this. However, Decim does no about these people's lives; the OVA blatantly implies it, twice.

1) He knew the old man was going to win the game of pool, if everything went smoothly, because he knew the old man was a beastly, and champion, pool player.

2) In the series first ep, he protects Machiko from Takashi because he knew she was defenseless. In the OVA, he let the players fight it out, and is in fact unmoved by the fight; this implies that he knew that old man could defend himself.

This episode also implies it because NOTHING in the memories of Machiko made her look like a horrible woman, which is why he's shock when Machiko suddenly released and evil cackle. Meanwhile, he shows NO emotion in regards to Takashi's breakdowns, because it was expect givin the insecurity, jealousy, and paranoia he display in those memories.

Torrible said:
I should have made it clear that it was a rant against marriage, not a rebuttal to you personally. What I should have said was arguing about infidelity seems petty when they were already dead and their eternal fates were at stake. Irrationality is part of being human yes, but once Decim told them about their possible fates, survival instinct (even on a spiritual level) should supersede whatever other petty emotions they were having. You are absolutely right. Knowingly getting into a marriage agreement and knowing what the consequences of spouse cheating is gives a person more moral onus to stay faithful. But still, the punishment that society doles out to spouse cheaters (like what happened to Tiger Woods) is excessive in my opinion. It's something about the sanctity of marriage that makes people pillory spouse cheaters with a fervor normally reserved for more violent crimes. It's the disproportion and unfairness of it that I was railing against. Again, purely subjective opinion.

Torrible said:
"Decim judges them on what they say and do." That is the injustice of it.

In that scenatio, he doesn't question her motivation on why she lied. She could have lied for totally sadistic reasons. Or it could be for altruistic reasons. My point is, how would he know? If he didn't know, his judgment seemed to be patently unfair by default.

Torrible said:
It's hard to explain this but I'll try. Evolution shapes us into who we are and how we behave. Babies who cry survive better than babies that don't. That's how the crying gene is proliferated down future generations. It doesn't matter that in the caveman age, babies didn't cry. By the same token, women who use fists to defend themselves in the past will not survive as well as women who use soothing words. That's how women are better at language and mind reading. That and how women are physically weaker meant that women would prefer a sharp tongue (better tool at their disposal) over fists, emotional abuse over physical abuse. Culture do play a role in shaping women in a certain way, but it's not as significant as biology itself when it comes to certain propensities.

Torrible said:
I know there are many possible interpretations. I was responding to your initial quote that she indirectly caused their deaths. If she was faithful, then there was nothing she could have done to avoid her fate because he kept his suspicions to himself. If she wasn't, then you have a point, but still it doesn't absolve him from the greater blame. His paranoia isn't justified just because he turned out to be right by chance. The onus is still on him to clarify (I know it's not easy. Maybe hire a P.I?) one way or another because there's a chance he could be wrong.

Satire said:

Babies who cry having a higher survival rate over babies that don't is a bad example. Haven't you ever read the scenario about the crying baby moral dilemma?
"It's war time, and you are hiding in a basement with several other people. The enemy soldiers are outside. Your baby starts to cry loudly, and if nothing is done the soldiers will find you and kill you, your baby, and everyone else in the basement. The only way to prevent this from happening is to cover your baby's mouth, but if you do this the baby will smother to death. Is it morally permissible to do this?"

In this case, it's not good that the baby is crying. But in any case, nearly all human babies cry because it's a natural occurrence for us as a species. Human babies rely on their mother for survival and crying gets the attention of the mother. That's just a biological feature of humans. Other animals have their own as well.

Satire said:

You're basically proving exactly what I was saying. Let me clear something up, in case it's not clear. Indirectly causing their deaths means that she played an underlying role in how they died. Directly would be the actual act of the husband crashing the car and killing them.

-snip-if she did cheat on her husband, then she would have been the root cause for everything, making the husbands actions more warranted and justified than if she did not cheat. In either case, she shares some of the responsibility.

Satire said:

If she was 100% innocent in the suspicions of adultery, she still has an indirect role for their deaths. She never noticed that he felt jealous and paranoid. Her not noticing her husband's suspicions and jealousy is a fault and does play a part in how they died, albeit a small one. If she had noticed, she could have possibly confronted the problem, their misunderstanding would be cleared up, and their deaths could have been avoided.

Torrible said:
I think you are underestimating the severity of cheating just a bit.

Torrible said:
I don't think you can reasonably expect her to do that since she would have absolutely no idea any of his distress (if she had noticed) was due to her (since she didn't do anything wrong at that point). It's unreasonable to claim that she has to take partial responsibility for her own death simply for not soothing his distress that could have been due to anything.

Satire said:

1. Knowing the old man is likely to win the game does not imply he knows about his actual life. He could know who was likely to win, but it is not implied anywhere that he knew it because of the old man's past.
2. Incorrect. He protects the wife because the game was over, not because she's helpless. She cannot die in the bar anyway. She's already dead. He protects her out of principle. Once the game is over, it's over. In Billiards they fought during the game, which is allowed, much like how the husband was allowed to take her dart forcefully in episode 1.

If Decim knew their pasts, he would not have sent Machiko to the void. She was a far better person than her husband was. But he does send her to the void, which would imply that he does not know their past. It's pretty obvious that she lies when she goes off on her husband about not loving him, the child not being his, etc. If Decim knew their pasts, he would see she's lying and put two and two together. She would get the reincarnation door.

Makaze_no_Moujuu said:

Dude....you completely ignored the fact that the Void =/= Hell, or a negative outcome at all.

1) Eh...I guess it's subjective, but we can agree to disagree.

2) I agree with this logic.

barabara said:
If I get this right, this a series with the recurring characters being the supporting ones, and episodic characters being the main ones for the episode. An unusual format.



The void implies that the soul will stop existing, which is a negative outcome, and is contrasted with the good outcome 'reincarnation'. Although some people do wish to completely disappear after they die.

Either way, it doesnt seem the woman deserved that outcome just for cheating or being after the money which is a normal thing in a society that sees women as a commodity. You know, the rich unattractive guy gets an attractive wife, she gets the money everybody is happy.

barabara said:
If I get this right, this a series with the recurring characters being the supporting ones, and episodic characters being the main ones for the episode. An unusual format.



The void implies that the soul will stop existing, which is a negative outcome, and is contrasted with the good outcome 'reincarnation'. Although some people do wish to completely disappear after they die.

Either way, it doesnt seem the woman deserved that outcome just for cheating or being after the money which is a normal thing in a society that sees women as a commodity. You know, the rich unattractive guy gets an attractive wife, she gets the money everybody is happy.

Makaze_no_Moujuu said:

Nope. Neither the Void or Reincarnation are definitively good, or bad. Reincarnation isn't a good thing when if you're brought back as a bug, or plant, to suffer in a second life; though you could get lucky, and be reborn as a human in a rich family lol. The Void is a l

Nope. Do research first, as then you'd know that reincarnation is more so thought as a punishment (humans a lot of the times are not resurrected as a human again, but as bugs, animals, plants, etc.), or another trial, while the Void is essentially either eternal peace, or re-evaluation/meditation, or even enlightenment (honestly, there's too many interpretations lol).

barabara said:


I agree there's too many views, contrasting beliefs about reincarnation. Reincarnation doesnt necessarily mean punishment, either.

In a duality of reincarnation/enlightment, enlightment is the good outcome. However, Void =/= Enlightment. I understand that in context of this show, Void implies punishment since, ahem "cheating" happened. and the oni mask above the elevator door.

Sourire said:
anime of the season

Lena-K said:
As for the ending.. I don't think we can make a clear judgement given that we don't even know what void and reincarnation mean exactly, maybe they'll explain next episode. But I have a new idea that the decision who goes where is not made on moral premises, hell, both characters have faults. Rather, their destination is decided by observing how their hearts settle after the game - whether they cling to life or accept death. Both in Death Billiards and here the character under the white mask seemed to have regrets that he wanted to fix in life, and the one under the Hannya mask seemed to have accepted the unchangeable reality of death.
Texts about Buddhist afterlife point that in the moment after death the decision between rebirth or nirvana depends on the soul's attachment to the world.

barabara said:



1) This is exactly what I was saying. You're probably right that the show is using the Buddhist system, which is what I would guess as well. Hence, in a system with reincarnation/nirvana, reincarnation is seen as a negative outcome and there's a possibility to reincarnate into things other than human, based on the character of the person.

2) I don't understand where you're getting this association, there's no distinct concept of Void in Buddhism not that I know of. If you link Void with the concept of Nirvana (liberation of the cycle of reincarnation) then this makes sense.

3) Well, obviously, those 2 outcomes are unrelated to christian concepts of heaven/hell.

In this show, it is strongly implied that the outcomes are not equal, one is definitely good and the other one is bad, represented by smiling mask and frowning mask.