I'm pretty sure that by definition it
does prevent a negative outcome, since "mutually beneficial" generally means that each person is better off than before the trade, meaning there are positive payoffs on both sides - I'm not sure where exactly you get a negative from there.
In the example of "give me what I want or I'll shoot you", you could argue that "X prevents Y from being shot" and "Y gives X what he wants" is a benefit for both sides, but that ignores the first part, "X puts Y in a position where he is going to be shot" is not mutually beneficial, so the salient part of the example (the threat) is not actually an example of mutually beneficial exchange.