Specifically, my feelings the first time through, were that the first encounter ("I want directions" -> gets attacked) was just overdone and dumb—that is to say, the interactions that were intended to be humourously dumb, overshot and landed more in "this is too dumb" territory for me.
The second chapter started going in an interesting, non-humorous direction with it (sentient monster 'pets' in a hero-dystopia). That didn't really cleanse my palate of the first chapter, because the actions still felt dumb in that context (why is "plastic man" going in for the kill? The premise explains that some heroes are dirty slavers—but then why kill? Is sentience and peaceful communication normal among the "monsters" these guys enslave and kill on a regular basis? Is deception frequent? If not, how and why did the protagonist get marked as a "monster" in the first place? Some further explanation seemed required. Which might or might not have been forthcoming, thus the "further world-building" part of the comment.)
My original comment was written in the moment of fluctuation between my continued disdain for the first chapter and my slight intrigued curiosity towards the emergence of a dystopian premise in the second chapter. It is not really a considered analysis, which I hope is apparent from the tone of the comment.
Now, going back and re-reading the first chapter, the psycho-killer approach of the hero is, with the additional knowledge I have now, still not totally sensical, but within suspension of disbelief—I can, if I go out on a limb, make vague guesses as to maybe why the character might be acting in the particularly-dumb fashion that they are, and hypothesize about the world based on that... If I read it in a totally non-humourous way, mind. If I'd thought the first chapter was hilarious on it's own, I suppose I would feel this to be a neat hat-trick. I didn't, so it just felt like bad writing—specifically, providing information in the wrong order and thereby breaking suspension of belief first, after which point it the revelation of new information that points in the right direction but still doesn't explain the first chapter (which clearly was played mostly for kicks anyway) is not enough to convince a skeptical reader (i.e. me).
Honestly, writing all this out, part of my problem may indeed just be that I felt the humour is dumb and the setting is at least half-interesting so I'm focusing on the latter in reading it, whereas I'm supposed to be appreciating the former first and only then considering the latter. I'm not sure.