Except she then took a cut from the people selling themselves into slavery. And apparently was forcing people to work in her fields (but that wasn't slavery---it's not slavery if you're forced to do stuff but you get "paid" in food and shelter, right?) Slavery won't be tolerated, except for when it was.
So she didn't really care who crucified those children? She flat-out tells herself "I did it for the children."
Unless you're King Cleon, who resumed slaving and . . . Dany tolerated it. Or you're the Yunkish, who opened slave markets right outside her walls and Dany grudgingly admitted that she'd agreed that was okay. Or you're Xaro Xhoan Daxos, a slaver that Dany was perfectly okay with up until he personally threatened her.
Sigh. Like I've said: she claims she wasn't punishing them for being slavers. She says she's punishing them for the crucifixions. ("It was justice. I did it for the children.") And she chose to go about it in a way that was designed to make herself feel better without actually bothering to determine individual guilt. This does not fill me with confidence with how she'll act in the future.
He didn't "effectively somewhat weaken" this series. You really think he thought readers would view the caricatures of Slaver's Bay in the same way we view the people of Westeros? No chance. He has readers glossing over Dany committing the same truly horrific actions---crucifixions (the only person in Westeros we've seen crucifying people is Ramsay!), torture (Cersei and Qyburn, anyone?)---that are condemned in the Westerosi. I think that's perfectly intentional on his part.
Edited by tze, 20 March 2012 - 04:44 PM.