[Predictions] One Piece Manga Chapter 928 Discussion and 929 Predictions

Rate This Week's Chapter!

  • 1⭐️

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2⭐️

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • 3⭐️

    Votes: 5 38.5%
  • 4⭐️

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • 5⭐️

    Votes: 6 46.2%

  • Total voters
    13
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
20,107
Likes
3,709
Kin
142💸
Kumi
22💴
Thread starter #63
Problem is if kid really broke his armor n left a scar like that on Cracker than the words like" i can't believe a scrub like u will break my armor"(Cracker to Luffy) makes no sense at all.
As both kid n luffy comes from same generation with almost same lvl of bounty.

Even if kid don't want to continue the fight then also it would turn into a full fledged fight as Cracker can make an army of those biscuits soldier n send it towards him.
Also the way he said very few guys have seen him also suggest that only family members have seen him.
And he might have got the scar when he was a kid(as we saw most of the BMs kids are like psycho) which he later incorporated in his armor to make it look realistic.


I never saw that Snack panel. Thanks for posting it.
I really don't see how Cracker saying that to Luffy has any relevance? Most of the Yonkou and their crew members can't really be described as being unbiased nor seem to care much about bounties. For them everyone is pretty much trash below their feet and why bother differentiating trash? Heck it's highly questionable someone like Cracker even knows all their bounties.

All the Supernova that tried to trespass on BM's territory were able to escape, even Urouge and he beat one commander and then tangled with another. You would think that would be enough reason to chase him, but no. So it's not so much that they couldn't chase them, but that they didn't seem to have any incentive to do it and if they didn't bother with Urouge, why would they with Kid?

And if you really want to give dubious interpretations to what he says, at least choose the ones that are more likely. If Cracker wanted to imply only family members, he could have just said 'family members'. Omitting that makes it more likely that it aren't only family members as there's no reason to intentionally be ambiguous about it as it lessens the impact of that statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom