I know -- it makes no sense (and feels very much like a retcon pasted in over the existing scenario).
I checked back, and all that she actually *says* is Celui que vous avez tué était mon fiancé/J'ai pris des vêtements masculins pour pouvoir plus aisement venger François, et c'est ainsi que je suis devenue mousquetaire" (The man you killed was my fiancé/I adopted male clothing to be able to more easily avenge François, and it was thus that I became a musketeer). And then the rest of the scene is basically all fighting as Manson pulls out a concealed weapon and counter-attacks, and we don't get any further explanation.
So she doesn't literally say that she became a musketeer for the purposes of revenge, but only that wearing male clothing made it possible -- though I think the implication is there, and I certainly heard and interpreted it that way! But whatever her intentions (becoming "a lawman" with powers to track down malefactors?), they were clearly entirely ineffective, since she has got nowhere towards finding the murderers despite the passage of six years -- until she stumbles upon them by accident, that is :-p And more seriously, unlike the original Athos, who is clearly set up from the beginning as being haunted by an undisclosed past, she has given absolutely no signs until this point of carrying a tragic backstory and a burning desire for revenge, so it doesn't come across as a revelation about the character but as a rather baffling insertion.
no subject
I checked back, and all that she actually *says* is Celui que vous avez tué était mon fiancé/J'ai pris des vêtements masculins pour pouvoir plus aisement venger François, et c'est ainsi que je suis devenue mousquetaire" (The man you killed was my fiancé/I adopted male clothing to be able to more easily avenge François, and it was thus that I became a musketeer). And then the rest of the scene is basically all fighting as Manson pulls out a concealed weapon and counter-attacks, and we don't get any further explanation.
So she doesn't literally say that she became a musketeer for the purposes of revenge, but only that wearing male clothing made it possible -- though I think the implication is there, and I certainly heard and interpreted it that way! But whatever her intentions (becoming "a lawman" with powers to track down malefactors?), they were clearly entirely ineffective, since she has got nowhere towards finding the murderers despite the passage of six years -- until she stumbles upon them by accident, that is :-p And more seriously, unlike the original Athos, who is clearly set up from the beginning as being haunted by an undisclosed past, she has given absolutely no signs until this point of carrying a tragic backstory and a burning desire for revenge, so it doesn't come across as a revelation about the character but as a rather baffling insertion.