He was even considering how to divide his wealth after the divorce.
His possessions were so coveted, it was as if others couldn't wait to get their hands on them.
Well, sorry about that.
He was by no means a soft-hearted person.
Since she might have had the inclination to split up,
in his world, there was no divorce, only widowhood.
So he had to strike first to gain the upper hand.
They were both playing each other; it wasn't just his fault.
How could everything be blamed on him alone?
That really was a miscarriage of justice.
It was clearly they who had harbored ill intentions first; he was merely defending himself.
And as for that sudden death at his company,
she wanted to rush the work, stay behind, prove to others her capabilities. He merely provided her with the opportunity, the platform. As long as she succeeded, she could have what she wanted. And just because she failed, was he to blame for that?
What kind of reasoning was that?
