[Spoilers extended]Was the anwser to the "Slaver's Bay conflict" always Compromise?

I have noticed that most agree that the Peace Dany achieved at first was enough and that her deciding to fight the Slavers and stopping Compromising is a slippery slop and "Violance is a cycle first it's start with Evil people then it's moves to the innocents"

The argument is that "George is a liberal" and follow the philosophy that extremism in the defence of liberty is a vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is a virtue. Wanting to make the world a better place actually makes you just as bad as the actively malicious people maintaining slavery.With Tywin and Dany and the Starks representing it well,The Books are a critique of both Tywin's short sighted pramatism and Daenerys' unbending idealism. The Starks would then fall somewhere in the middle, the message being that while ideals such as honor, equality, and justice are worth pursuing, one has to be realistic and sensible about it.

The point of the "Slaver's Bay conflict" then isn't that Dany is violent towards the slavers, therefore she's going to be violent against the Westerosi.Daenerys according to that argument serves as a warning of how easy it to miss that someone is a tyrant when their brutality is being used against people who actually deserve it(Like Frank Herbert did with Paul Atreides in Dune and his comparison to him and JFK). The issue is that once a tyrant has taken power, the people who put him there have no control over who he chooses to go against then.

In the first book, Drogo enslaves the Lhazareen to fund his invasion plan. Dany doesn't have a choice in the matter, but she does justify it. In her mind, this is worth it. And that not implying that that she's a hypocrite for later taking a stance against slavery, but It's considered clue she thinks the people who stole her throne are at least as bad as the slavers and is used as proof on her entiltement issues that will show when she will face FAegon(That along with prophecy obsession)

Daenerys also doesn't really operate within any legal framework. Her power stems from dragons, unsullied, and eventually a horde of Dothraki, all devoted to her personally. This is different from the Starks or any Westerosi lord, who rule within certain constraints.

Moreover, Daenerys is just a far more selfish righteous person than Jon is for exemple. She is less interested in achieving results, and more interested in achieving a kind of poetic justice. Consider the time she crucified the same number of slave masters as children in ASOS. It's an arbitrary number, and for all we know more slave masters could have been involved than those punished.

And it's not just that Dany is more violent. There are cases where It could be argued she should have been more ruthless. In ADWD, she inexplicably tells the Green Grace that she would never harm the hostages, leading to the SOTH murders starting all over again. Compare that to Jon, who makes a threat to Tormund and IMO, intends on keeping it. This seems more cruel on the surface, but it actually succeeds in keeping the peace.

The point is Daenerys is naive, idealistic, self-righteous to a fault, and more interested in exterminating her enemies than actually helping the people they're oppressing. In a lot of ways she is a villain on the other extreme of Tywin who represent absolute Pragmatism

Ned,Robb and Jon on the other hand represent the middle ground Jon for exemple is a lot more pragmatic. At times he is even ruthless, but it's always as a means to an end. But he's also progressive, and he's willing to enact social change. The difference is that when he does it he takes the proper time to plan it and prepare for it (not perfectly, but more so than Dany). Dany on the other hand had no plan for the freed slaves, so much so that some of them begged her to sell themselves back to slavery, while half of them died on the walls outside Meereen because she hadn't prepared any way to feed, house, or tend to them.

So A girl with good ideals worth pursuing, but a terrible Queen. A ruler who can conquer cities, but has zero interest in ruling during peace time. Her character is a warning against the worship of Messiah figures.compared to Tywin Lannister who again represent absolute pragmatism,And the system is perfect because he thrive in it and is a way he could assure his legacy,Then comes the Starks as a middle ground

When GRRM talked about Aragon [here](https://www.tolkiensociety.org/2014/04/grrm-asks-what-was-aragorns-tax-policy/), his tax policy, and his "genocide" against orcs, another barbaric civilization,the argument is that he wrote Dany as foil for this type of hero, a realistic look at how Messiah figures would fare in a less fantastical setting.

Another side even argue that George's message that it was best she just ignored the whole slavery thing.It's all so we can tell ourselves that doing nothing is not only smart and intelligent, it's also the kindest thing we could do. Our apathy is virtue.

So it's ends with a sort of appeal to a general sense of complexity as to why we must keep the status quo:We have Tywin's Conservativism which leans to world "The world is unfair, and it's great because it benefits me, and if it doesn't then it should do." Against Dany's "The World is unfair and something must be done with it,With Fire and Blood" and finally the Starks "The world is unfair, and that's bad, but also there's the chance doing anything about it might just make it worse, But with compromise and being noble in the Long Term things will fix themselves" or "The world is unfair, and that's bad, but also there's the chance doing anything about it might just make it worse,just wring our hands about bad it is. Anyone who thinks they \*can\* change it is just a naive idiot. We're smart, because we \*know\* it's all unfixable."

Do you agree that was really GRRM's message to the Essos arc?That the solution that Dany must have taken was compromising even more?and by stopping Compromising and taking the "Fire and Blood" she just locked herself in the Bad Ending and took the wrong lesson?and how do you think the Starks would have handled "The Slaver's Bay conflict" if they were in Dany's place?Would Jon,Robb,Ned,Bran,Sansa,Catelyn and Arya really either ignore it or take "The moderate route"?