09:14:16 PM Dec 27th 2012
In what way does the page image adequately illustrate the trope? It states the exact opposite of the trope title and that's it. No irony, no joke, no other relevance. Given the link in the caption, this smells suspiciously like someone shoehorning some advertising to me.
11:37:12 AM Jun 7th 2012
As far as this particular trope goes, whether or not The Prince is a satire is immaterial because Machiavelli makes very similar claims in his Discourses, which is most certainly not a satire (the academic consensus seems to have shifted against the Prince being a satire anyway — it's very difficult to explain several key passages of the book if it is).
01:04:27 AM Apr 3rd 2010
Are the tangents about misusing the trope and Did Not Do The Research meant to be aimed at the authors of the works listed in the examples? Because they generally don't seem to be trying to specifically refute Machiavelli's philosophy; that connection is an invention of the trope description. Most of these are just: The villain is a dick. The hero isn't. Therefore, the hero has more loyal subordinates. That people might incorrectly take this to refute Machiavelli doesn't really reflect on the author.
12:13:02 PM Apr 15th 2010
In that case, we should probably change the name, since the trope description itself basically admits that the name is non-indicative and makes a faulty comparison.
12:18:31 PM Apr 15th 2010
I made a crowner.
09:31:15 AM Jun 5th 2011
Since all the examples seem to have the villinous character either not realizing they are invocing hatred through their rule through fear, or not planning against love being used against them as Machiavelli warned, perhaps this Tropes name should be You Fail Machiavelli Forever?