She pauses, again, with the need to digest that argument.
Morally good kings try to do this. Okay, this isn't preventing people from suffering harm... well, safety is... she doesn't understand why they'd care about happiness or how that fits in and she understands how rich people (people who have more stuff; she's encountered the idea of money as a unit-that-can-be-traded-for-stuff-because-the-king-says-so in books and on TV) are good to have as subjects because if people have more stuff you can take more of their stuff, they want to - oh, this is just the thing where a gang leader wants to make it good to be in their gang so gangsters will be in their gang instead of a different gang and they want to make people want to pay them for protection instead of someone else. She knows about that. But there's an obvious alternate strategy that King Beast is following, if you can get a big enough gang you can beat up all the other gangs and take over the whole island, that is the world... which he did...
"I think you're saying that good kings do this, but you aren't saying kings are good?" she says. "Like, sure, rich people have more stuff so the king can ask for more taxes, and safe people are less likely to die and dead people don't pay taxes, but at some point a king's going to say 'so, this would require me to give up something I want so my people can be happier, I think I will not do that' and why does he do that?" You can't just say that a king's interests are always the same as his minions' interests, gang leaders have more stuff than gang members.