Agreement between the tiger and the deer about the tiger's meal, is pure cheating. 
Anyway look... About this particular subject, for obvious reasons, there was a huge effort during the cold war, to find an excuse to justify the stealing. Because it was recognised as stealing to the capitalist world also and as i said and as it is famously well known, this theorem comes with a proof. So, relatively close to the cold war, they ended up with the excuse we have already discussed. The risk of the business owner. That is the best they could come up with and as we saw, this excuse is more than weak. That is what they also teached, otherwise no academic career... Recently, a few years ago, i heard something about trying to justify the stealing through the theory of marginal utility, if you are aware. Of course this failed too and never heard that again since then. The only thing that can really dispute the surplus value theorem is technology, as i have already said, because it might change the situation, depending on the case, making the human work less important.
Anyway, i don't say that you don't know economics, you are probably better than me on many things, why not, but this is not your thing. 
I guess the next subject i would like to discuss with you, if you are in the mood, would come also as a surprise.
By the way, i am not a marxist or something like this... 

 i do not think it is stealing or cheating.

But If we say, yes its stealing and so we wont do it, then i wont start the business in the first place. There is no incentive to do so.

If an agreement was between two deer, would that be ok? Is this really about difference in power? 

 Yes as i said, even if you don't want to steal, the system works this way. Guys all the top economists of the west, tried to debunk the theorem for decades for a reason. There is literally a ton of books and other critics on the subject. All of them failed so far. Half of the planet tried in the past to switch to socialism because of this. Have a look...
 

 ok. I wasn't arguing on this point, just asking a follow up. I also want to understand the thinking that leads to this. Because it doesn't make sense to me. 

 I see. The best is to look the theorem itself and the proof that accompanies it. In a nutshell, there is a surplus value created by the production procedure, and that whole surplus value ends up only in the pocket of the business owner. I hope that i am not confusing you, i am not really good on explaining things. 

 Agreement between the tiger and the deer is purely natural. Tiger can eat deer but eventually worms will eat the tiger. So what's the agreement between tiger and worms?

Anybody can try to prove anything they wanted, but one can always use their own brains.

We've $100 job. You do the easier part (negotiations and arrangements) and I do the harder part. So you get $5 and I get $95. I see no stealing in that arrangement, we both agreed with it.

In my opinion, stealing is something that happens when somebody takes something someone else have earned, without their consent. I think printing money is stealing because it reduces the purchasing power of our wealth without our consent.

How do you define stealing?


 

 Ah, so it's the word stealing that confuses you. Ok, we could maybe say it blackmail or injust. Let's say injust. Please read the theorem and the proof and make your own definition and share it with us, i think that would be the best. I am curious if you'll see something different.