Consent: Free Will or the Realistic Option?

Throughout Locke's Second Treatise of Government, he emphasizes the notion of government being created out of the "consent of the people." This notion is most explicitly stated by Locke as he describes, "The supreme power cannot take from any man part of his property without his own consent. For the preservation of property being the end of government, and that for which men enter into society (324);" and also that "...there being no law to be made without his consent (327)."While this notion of consent seems to be out of free will since people are freely entering into a society and government from the previous state of nature, the definition of consent into a society's governance becomes blurred as Locke describes the conquest of states upon each other. Locke describes that even the conquered are given the privilege to "submit by their own consent (338)" to their conqueror, yet the connotation of consent is no longer a positive notion as it once was described in Locke's earlier chapters. It would seem that Locke is trying to justify conquest by persuading that, in the end, the conquered will consent positively to their new conqueror, precisely like those in the conquering society have consented to their government, otherwise face another state of war. Yet, these two societies that have or are consenting, the conquering and the conquered, are seemingly and fundamentally different in the face of governance. Rather, the connotation of the conquered form of consent seems to be consent out of facing the necessary reality in order for survival, rather than consent of free will that Locke appeared to advertise earlier. Are these two forms of consent just as virtuous and fair as the other? Does Locke not see a difference in his ambiguity of his notion of "consent"?