I strongly disagree. Lena's supposedly read enough philosophy that she's familiar with Nietszche's three metamorphoses even before Seymore can tell her of the Child. So she, even more than most, should recognize what a ginormous red flag it is when Seymore opines that he prefers to think of "the Child" as "The Master." It not only completely invalidates the whole point of the original metaphor (rather than being reborn into a whole new world, he explicitly chains the supposed metamorph to the old world's hierarchy) but it makes it abundantly clear that he considers himself utterly beyond any sense of morality or rules.
Even beyond that the narration of that whole dinner is littered with Lena being unnerved by Seyemore's various turns of phrase or general predator vibe, to say nothing of his establishing character moment harassing the local homeless man. Or the tense music. The scene was clearly meant to drive home that Seymore is going to be the villain of the game, not paper over his faults in a way that might plausibly leave Lena unaware how Faustian Seymore's offer is. I agree Lena's supposed to be desperate enough to consider his offer even so, but that's just to fuel the corruption/exploitation kinks Seymore is supposed to embody.
If she'd actually had a decent working relationship with Seymore before the interview/dinner I might be willing to accept Lena turning a blind eye to some of those red flags. But she didn't, she'd barely spent 10 minutes with him. So I don't buy the argument she'd be surprised Seymore would be willing to blackmail her. If you want to play Lena as desperate enough to take the chance anyway (or just plain stupid enough not to see the obvious) that's fine, but I reject the idea that this was some masterclass in subtly, allowing the victim to hide in plain sight. It was - by design - the opposite.
Outside player's control, very early on Lena already expresses hesitation towards Seymour's initial advance.
My first ORS blind playthrough as a player is to reject Seymour's dinner audition in the first place.
That's me "playing as myself" as a "controller".
Lena as a character though, her intelligence is determined by how we play her. She could be smart enough or not smart enough to be familiar with The Child.
She could also be a person who sends money to her parents or not.
She could be a person that likes Shine more or like Fortress more.
In a world where Lena is a dutiful daughter sending money to her parents and running out of options, Seymour is cordial if Lena's attitude towards him is neutral. He doesn't outwardly blackmail Lena.
I didn't mean Seymour is hiding in plain sight or even that Seymour is subtle. It's not that.
I was talking about how that story path allows the player to see a struggling person with relatively little option decidedly/willingly make a deal with someone that she already feels isn't a virtuous person.
A neutral-attitude-towards-Seymour Lena isn't duped or enchanted by Seymour.
She has little option early chapters and Seymour's offer is a job offer.
The variant of Lena that is dutifully sending money to her parents are responsible for the wellbeing of not only her own life but also that of her parents.
That Lena has less optionality to pick and choose what jobs to do early on.
That particular story path then offers Lena an exit at the end of Ch 11.
Ch 11 is also a point where that Lena has more option than early chapter Lena.
That Lena now has more optionality to draw the line in the sand and reject Seymour.
For my playthrough, there's the music thing with Emma, and Perry being Ian's friend.
In life it's hard for some people to say "no" due to their circumstances.
And the nuance of how Eva write that possible situation to the point that it's believable for her to accept Seymour's initial job offer is why I said it's good writing.
