Sasori

But to answer you question: Tricking him into going to some secluded place and then ass-raping him with a dildo would be one such possibility, I imagine.

Did you miss the part where he's a big strong police detective and she's a normal-sized civilian woman?
 

Alternatively, she could hire someone to rape him for her.

I don't know about you, but I have no idea how I would go about hiring somebody to commit rape, let alone reliably, let alone on a corrupt police inspector well known to the underworld who has more contacts than I do.
 

But aside from that, the issue that I have in principle with your reasoning is twofold:
 
1) Saying that vigilantism is ever permissible is poison to society. Just because you don’t trust the justice system to deliver justice (which in her case isn’t even sure) you ought not take it into your own hands as that undermines the entire system and threatens to dissolve social order.

And yet, official impunity is also poison to society. It is systematically corroding the United States, for example, as we speak. If those with power are above the law and can do what they wish to the weak, the social order has no justice--which will both, from a practical perspective, "threaten to dissolve" it and, from a moral perspective, call into question its value--what is the worth of an order without justice?

Further, I could argue that the problems of vigilantism have generally been mainly that it was yet another tool for the strong to dominate the weak, such as the way lynching was used to put blacks "in their place".  But the rare reverse case is a somewhat different matter:

There is the question "Vigilantism or what?"  Certainly vigilantism and vendetta are poor replacements for the rule of (just) law.  But they may still be an improvement on nothing at all.  That's one reason they have existed so commonly through history.  Now, we tend to assume that there either is rule of law or there isn't, but in fact that isn't so.  In most places the law effectively applies more to some groups than to others; in many there are groups to whom the law barely applies at all, especially in relation to less privileged groups.  Groups to which the law does not in effect apply exist in a vacuum, with perhaps a fig leaf of the appearance that a legal system is in place, but not the reality.  Indeed it's worse than a vacuum, since they corruptly apply the power the supposed rule of law gives them while retaining immunity to its punishments.  Applying vigilantism to such people is not a pre-emption of the rule of law because there is no rule of law applying to them, merely a hypocritical pretence. 

I think a fairly strong argument could be made that in fact, when it comes to those whose position in the system makes their abuses unpunishable within it, unofficial reprisals from "outside" constitute a useful corrective. Of course, the system is going to frown on such a viewpoint because it is the system and prefers that all legitimacy should be its property. But that does not make it so.
 

2) Specifically advocating murder as the only appropriate punishment because anything else leaves open the chance of retribution is monstrous. So because you are too cowardly to face the consequences of your actions yourself the other person should die? In other words, not the crime dictates the punishment but your fear of retaliation does? That doesn’t sound like justice anymore.

All that's easy to say, but saying retribution is only OK if you're willing to commit suicide to get it is a bit steep. Yes, I'll certainly grant that she's not a plaster saint.
 

And that doesn’t even go into the question of where to draw the line. Better murder the person who spit in my food, correct? After all, who knows what they might do if I retaliate by spitting into theirs.

Gimme a break. Yes, cases are complicated. This is true in official legal stuff too--case law is complicated and contradictory. So what? This case is
not someone spitting in someone's food.

Eurgh, what a cringey comment. “Leave you depraved sinners worship to the devil herself in peace”? Do you even listen to yourself?
 

While I can’t speak for the guy who originally incurred your ire, I can tell you a number of traits that make our remarkable protagonist just that—“awesome”: [...]

See, this is where we apparently differ. I don’t think it’s permissible to cherry-pick aspects of people when considering whether or not they are awesome. Would you call John Wayne Gacy awesome if he possessed those same qualities in addition to his bad ones?
 

Just quit questioning the very essence of the story as you’re never going to get the answer you’re looking for.

I never did that though. Failed to read my previous reply or something? I specifically pointed that out already.
 

Anyhow, have fun reading (into) and judging this series and its readers/commenters with your beaming self-righteousness,

What, pray tell, did I do that was self-righteous? The way I see it the one who seems smugly self-assured here is you, honestly.

It’s manga—a work of fiction—for pete’s sake! Don’t take every offhand comment you read so damn seriously. If someone thinks the protagonist is awesome, then she’s awesome. If another thinks she’s awful, then she is awful. It is what it is—a matter of opinion. Neither is necessarily right or wrong, nor is there anything strange about dis/liking such a fictitious character. Now, you’re free to ask whatever and whoever you’d like regarding the series and their comments. Just quit questioning the very essence of the story as you’re never going to get the answer you’re looking for. I doubt even the creator, Shinohara Toru, himself can help you in that regard. If I were him though, this will be my concise and honest reply: because it’s more interesting (read as awesome) this way.  

Yes, we readers can use our personal opinion to shape how we view a story but I think you are missing the point of the story altogether. It does not go into the morals of revenge and the justice system, it is a prison break manga where the characters try to outsmart each other. Nami's backstory isn't the focus but just a driving force to begin the story. Her backstory can be anything really, we just need her in 1) prison and 2) plotting revenge. 

 

Furthermore, Nami was never presented as a saint fighting for justice. She was presented as ruthless and manipulative causing the deaths of many inmates and even a miscarriage. Why some people thinks she's badass is the reason why many also thinks the Joker in Batman is badass. Their cold, calculated schemes are fun to watch. 

 

Seriously, focusing too much on the backstory defeats the purpose, as it is not what the story is trying to convey. It never mentioned whether getting revenge is right or wrong and never advertised murder as the correct punishment for rape. Honestly, going into this manga and analysing it on its morals is like going into a harem manga, expecting fast romance development and feeling disappointed when you get 100+ chapters of comedy instead.

First of all, take note that I personally do not advocate seeking revenge. I don’t see any merit in it and that’s not just because I am a Christian. Aside from any ethical considerations, exacting vengeance on your own tends to escalate the situation into an endless cycle of violence. Only a well-ordered, impartial system can prevent this and acting outside it is begging to create one such aforementioned cycle. I mean even today you can go to some Eastern European countries and find smoldering blood feuds that may have once started over something as trivial as a theft centuries ago but devolved into a brutal quasi-war with regular murders (VICE did a documentary on that a while ago).

 

But to answer you question: Tricking him into going to some secluded place and then ass-raping him with a dildo would be one such possibility, I imagine. She could even do it with a disguise on so that he would have no idea that it was her (or even that it was a woman) who did it. Alternatively, she could hire someone to rape him for her. I guess he might be able to add one and one together and figure out that it was her anyway but here is where the second part of this comes into play: Leaving the country (or at least the prefecture). From what we know about her she is a) not particularly attached to it anyway (has no relatives or close friends there) and b) fairly smart so starting anew somewhere else is something that seems definitely possible for her. And that his influence extends outside of Japan seems unlikely. Not to mention that this is pre-Internet.

 

But aside from that, the issue that I have in principle with your reasoning is twofold:

 

1) Saying that vigilantism is ever permissible is poison to society. Just because you don’t trust the justice system to deliver justice (which in her case isn’t even sure) you ought not take it into your own hands as that undermines the entire system and threatens to dissolve social order. I hope I don’t have to explain to you why it would be bad if people regressed into taking “justice” into their own hands again.

 

2) Specifically advocating murder as the only appropriate punishment because anything else leaves open the chance of retribution is monstrous. So because you are too cowardly to face the consequences of your actions yourself the other person should die? In other words, not the crime dictates the punishment but your fear of retaliation does? That doesn’t sound like justice anymore.

And that doesn’t even go into the question of where to draw the line. Better murder the person who spit in my food, correct? After all, who knows what they might do if I retaliate by spitting into theirs.

 

Also, let’s not forget that she already stabbed the guy in her attempt to murder him which is what got her into prison in the first place. Now I don’t know what you would choose but both rape and serious injuries (not to mention the loss of his job and career) are neither things that I would want to experience. So in a sense she already had her revenge, she just hasn’t had enough to quench her lust for vengeance yet.

She could not go to the law, law enforcement would be on his side.  She could not beat him up, he is bigger and stronger.  Similarly, I don't see her successfully kidnapping and imprisoning him for, say, three years, perhaps giving him time off for good behaviour and expressing remorse, and releasing him afterwards.  But even if she did, he would then take revenge in turn (just as her continuing vendetta is partly for the initial betrayal, partly rage fuelled by having been put away in prison).

 

Killing him or leaving him alone were the only realistic options available for a person without power who had reason to expect terrible consequences if she merely pissed him off, consequences that indeed happened after she failed to do him in the first time.

This one's personal. She's not seeking JUSTice here (and neither should be the readers).

Huh? “This one’s personal”? As opposed to what? Every other kind of vengeance that a victim is trying to inflict? And why should we readers not look for justice? I don’t see why we should throw away our own moral compass when reading fiction.
 

And whoever said revenge has to be an eye for an eye?

Ye ancient Hebrews did. And a good thing they and others did, too, otherwise we might still live in a world where feuds are the primary ways in which “justice” is served. I don’t know about you but I prefer living in a world where the severity with which crimes are punished is not decided by the hot-headed whims of the victims but by an impartial third party. What’s more, I’d rather that crimes be punished proportionally, not disproportionally (like the MC does).
 

What exactly do you expect from her--hatch a plot to get her ex ass-raped?

That’d be one possibility.
 

Seriously though, just drop it. If not the topic, then the series altogether.

Yeah, no, you can fuck right off with your orders.