During the investigation of recent hollers in the Complete Monster thread, it's become apparent to the staff that an insular, unfriendly culture has evolved in the Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard threads that is causing problems.
Specific issues include:
- Overzealous hollers on tropers who come into the threads without being familiar with all the rules and traditions of the tropes. And when they are familiar with said rules and traditions, they get accused (with little evidence) of being ban evaders.
- A few tropers in the thread habitually engage in snotty, impolite mini-modding. There are also regular complaints about excessive, offtopic "socializing" posts.
- Many many thread regulars barely post/edit anywhere else, making the threads look like they are divorced from the rest of TV Tropes.
- Following that, there are often complaints about the threads and their regulars violating wiki rules, such as on indexing, crosswicking, example context and example categorization. Some folks are working on resolving the issues, but...
- Often moderator action against thread regulars leads to a lot of participants suddenly showing up in the moderation threads to protest and speak on their behalf, like a clique.
It is not a super high level problem, but it has been going on for years and we cannot ignore it any longer. There will be a thread in Wiki Talk
to discuss the problem; in the meantime there is a moratorium on further Complete Monster and Magnificent Bastard example discussion until we have gotten this sorted out.
Update: The new threads have been made and can be found here:
for the earliest date a work can be discussed, (usually two weeks from the US release), as well as who's reserved discussion.
- Why do a cleanup?: This trope definitely exists and has a well documented history of use. That being said, it frequently gets misused to a character who meets one of the components, namely that they are smart, charming while not necessarily even being a villain, or create good plans. While these are components, there is also a certain personality required, not to mention that all of the above are required to be present for a character to be a true Magnificent Bastard. As the trope attracts interest, it unfortunately brings in a lot of misuse and I thought the best way to rectify this would be a Perpetual Cleanup Thread, as is being done and has seen success with Complete Monster.
- What makes a Magnificent Bastard: Below is a list of the individual components to make this character. Note that they must all be present, not just some, which has lead to frequent misuse:
- Must be intelligent: Goes without saying, to be a Magnificent Bastard, the character has to be smart in the first place and use their brain to work towards whatever their end goal may be;
- Must be a Bastard: While going overboard in how vile the character is can be detrimental, a key aspect is the Bastard part of the trope, whether the character is an out-and-out antagonist in the work, some manner of Villain Protagonist, or something in between, they at least have some unscrupulous qualities to qualify for this trope;
- Must not be too detestable: Again, there is a ceiling on how bad the character can be before they just become too nefarious, blocking out the Magnificent part of the trope. A genocidal racist or child-raping Sadist aren't going to make the cut;
- Think on their feet: In addition to being a Chessmaster, a Magnificent Bastard, if the character deals with situations in which their initial plan is ruined, has to be able to pull a Xanatos Speed Chess and at least come up with a competent strategy to make up for lost time, otherwise they fail for being unable to think in tough spots;
- Have charm: Even if they don't necessarily make every character they meet fall in love with them and can even be detested by others, the audience has to find an amicable social relation to the character, or they are failing to make the impact required for this trope.
- What to do if a character is listed on a page but has not been approved?: They need to be removed, all candidates need to come through the cleanup thread first. The character could well count but they need to be analyzed properly and voted on first.
- Do we list Playing With this trope?: No; as a YMMV trope, this cannot be Played With, so we only want examples that are Played Straight.
- What do I do if I want a character to be listed as a Magnificent Bastard?: The greatest success Complete Monster saw for its cleanup effort was from the invention of the effort post format, so, borrowing from that, a troper wishing to propose a Magnificent Bastard will create such a post in the following format:
- Begin by describing The work, this will help establish the setting the character is in and for the reader to understand what kind of a scenario they are in;
- Summarize The character's actions, this will provide a listing for readers to understand what they do and how it applies to this trope because charm and lack of smugness are so crucial, this is a good time to be incorporating exactly the flavor of how they operate to explain this;
- List circumstances in which the character must Think on their feet, these are times where a wrench might be thrown in their initial plan and they have to adapt on the spot or even come up with a new scheme all together, this is also a good time to explain how the villain reacts to defeat when they have to face it, a true Magnificent Bastard won't break down into tears at the thought of death, they should have known such a possibility could occur and be able to handle it with more dignity;
- The competition, similar to the Heinous Standard dealt with for a Complete Monster, this section is to deal with how successful the character is in carrying out their plans compared to other characters. While, as a villain, they probably are going to lose in the end, it is good to explain how other characters handle the same situation. There is no exceptionalism case to be made for this trope but explaining the variety helps the reader have a better understanding of the proposal.
- How do you know when the character's arc is done so they can be proposed? When their tenure as a villain or antagonist finishes. This could happen in a single Story Arc in an entire work, a single work of a franchise, or the whole series in general. We'll show lenience to Long-Runners with constantly recurring candidates or series with outstanding continuities (ex. comic books), and it's entirely possible to count in a work or two but not in general for a reason like Depending on the Writer.
- What about candidates evil because of external sources? Those Made of Evil can qualify if they show enough individuality and tactical acumen — in other words, they have the personality to fulfill the magnificence requirement. Conversely, those brainwashed, especially if they're a better person without it, may fail the individuality aspect and cannot count.
- What if they are under orders from a higher-up? Depends. If the boss created the plans down to the letter and the candidate is just following them, sounds like we should discuss the boss instead. However, if the candidate takes creative liberties with the orders, adds their own charm and flair to them, fills in holes in the orders, and/or actively deals with obstacles their boss did not talk about, the candidate shows enough individual thinking to qualify.
- What about Character Development? An MB is something a character can develop into... a nice person who plots well might become more morally gray as the work goes on and hits the "Bastard" criteria, thus making them viable. Likewise, a Smug Snake might shed their ego, become more understanding of the threat others pose and gain the personality or "Magnificent" criteria, likewise making them viable. Conversely, a character who looks like this trope might suffer from a Sanity Slippage or just get outed as not being as smart as they thought they were and become incompatible with MB.
- Can an MB be a good guy? Not in the conventional sense... it is required they have at least some dubious traits lest they fail the "Bastard" criteria. That being said, a character who pulls a Heel–Face Turn or eventually stops taking villainous actions is still fair game: as there was a point in time where they were both "Magnificent" and a "Bastard" at the same time and they've merely adapted as time goes on. Now... if such a character begins showing other issues (i.e.: becomes prone to freak outs or starts getting outwitted) then they're compromising their Magnificence and will probably be deemed a cut. What's important is stylishly operating while at least for some time being willing to take at best underhanded methods to see a job done. A Heel–Face Turn in itself isn't a disqualifier but they do have to have been "Magnificent" and a "Bastard" at the same time and afterwards can't start slipping on the former front.
- What about characters whose stories can take different routes?: When proposing a character in a form of media that has them in multiple story routes. Said character must be consistent with their characteristics in all routes. (ex.: Can't have an example who shows promise on one route yet fails in another.) The only exception is if a later installment of the series confirms the character's actions which made them worth proposing are the canon route.
- Is there a timeframe rule like with Complete Monster?: Yes, please wait two weeks until after the work has concluded before proposing a character (again, usually using the North American air date). As is the case with CM, we want to give a reasonable time frame so that everyone interested in seeing the work has done so and can participate in the discussion without having anything spoiled.
- What about groups like with Complete Monster?: This is a point of divergence between the two tropes. While CM does not allow for a single entry encompassing more than three characters lest their heinousness for crimes becomes too watered down, with MB as long as they are treated as one "unit" it is acceptable to lump all characters provided they share acts of charm and intelligence.
- Can I propose my own work's character as a Magnificent Bastard?: No, this is a YMMV subject and the creator of a content is way too biased to be able to evaluate the criteria we're looking for without a second opinion taking over. That being said, you are more than welcome to encourage someone to consume your creation and if they feel a character counts, are more than welcome to suggest them.
- My example/edit has been approved, but the example subpage is locked! How do I get it added?: The moderators do not add examples to locked example subpages in the MagnificentBastard/ namespace directly. Rather, you need to do the edit to a sandbox page that follows the format Sandbox.MagnificentBastard<Name of the example subpage> (e.g for MagnificentBastard.Fullmetal Alchemist it's Sandbox.Magnificent Bastard Fullmetal Alchemist) and on a Friday, ask in the locked pages edit requests thread for the content to be swapped in.
Thread rules
When voting a troper must specify the effort post they're voting on and cannot merely vote on "Everything I missed" as in the past it has indicated the poster didn't read the effort post and is guessing instead of analyzing.
Resolved items
In general, a character listed on this trope is considered "settled". This means they should not be challenged unless information used to list them was incorrect or information was missed in the initial discussion.
However, when re-litigating a candidate, the same rules apply for when they were originally proposed. If they do not have five or more upvotes than downvotes for approval upon a re-litigation, including votes from the initial discussion if they do not change, then they are a cut.
This especially applies to the characters listed below, who have been discussed excessively and repeated attempts to get them listed/cut may result in punitive action for bogging down the thread.
Definitely an MB
- Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers: Any sadism Darkrai displays is limited in effect thanks to the game's nature and any cowardice which can be inferred about him is Alternative Character Interpretation about his tactical retreats.
- Avatar: The Last Airbender: Azula's Villainous Breakdown is undone in the sequel comic Smoke & Shadow where she regains her composure and ends up stable and in control enough to count.
Definitely not an MB
- South Park: The show's frequent use of vulgar comedy and mean-spirited humor leaves any potential candidates devoid of the dignity or charm to qualify.
Edited by GastonRabbit on Aug 31st 2023 at 4:15:22 AM
Sorry if this is improper procedure at all, but I wanted to ask about this entry for Kazuma Asogi that was just added to the The Great Ace Attorney page here apparently based on consensus in the thread.
I don't disagree with the entire addition, but I think the part about Tobias Gregson is written a bit disingenuously. In the game, Kazuma clarifies that he went along with the assassination exchange purely so he could get to England, and did not actually ever intend to assassinate Gregson. He went along to Dunkirk with him so he could question him on his role in framing his father Genshin and find out who the head of the Reaper Conspiracy was. It's only there, when Gregson refuses to name his superior and also insists he did the right thing in framing Genshin, when Kazuma impulsively attacked him with his katana and then left. This is the full truth of the matter that the game ends on. In court Kazuma expresses that he had no problem lying to Jigoku that he would go through with it, and at the ending he admits he's shaken that he lost control of himself for that one moment when he attacked Gregson, which also supports that he hadn't premeditatedly planned to kill him the entire time. But the entry describes it as if he was just intending to kill him the entire time until the very last second.
So I was just wondering if there would be a better way to word that part. I can't find the post where this entry was approved (it wasn't linked in the edit reason, just the thread in general) so I don't know if this was discussed already.
Edited by Octoya on Jan 8th 2022 at 11:06:44 AM
Klavice that's yours. Acknowledge please.
This is the second time factual errors have been found in an entry. Please be mindful when making these.
Edited by 43110 on Jan 8th 2022 at 7:12:14 PM
Sure to Copelius and let me say we've discussed Mabuse on the side. I'm in full concord with 43 here
Caesar
Sure to Jared and Coppelius. Likewise agreeing Mabuse sounds like a cut.
Ok! Last one for this batch, serving as something of a combo with CM thanks exclusively to the actor in question...from a really good film here, unlike over on CM!
What's the work?
Arlington Road is a 1999 thriller starring Jeff Bridges as our lead hero Michael Faraday, a college professor who teaches about American terrorism in an attempt to honor his FBI wife, who left Michael and their young son Grant widowed and motherless after an operation gone wrong ended her life. All seems well in Michael's little suburban neighborhood as he has finally begun seeing a new girlfriend, and the new neighbors next the Langs start to become more chummy with him. But Michael begins noticing some straaaaange happenings, and realizes that those "homegrown terrorists" he teaches about...well, some are right across the street!
Who is "Oliver Lang"? What makes him a candidate?
Tim Robbins giving one of the best damn villain performances of the 90s that I am shocked I have not heard about until recently, the man known as "Oliver Lang" serves as the film's Big Bad alongside his more understated wife Cheryl (Joan Cusack!). Along with their 3 kids, they seem to be a perfectly normal, suburban household, who meet Michael after he saves their son from an accident. Oliver grows closer with Michael as neighbors and friends, becoming like a family member to young Grant, always while keeping certain strange happenings and information out of Michael's reach about his job as a "structural engineer".
But Michael soon begins getting suspicious that Oliver is not all he seems and begins digging into his past, discovering that he's not "Oliver Lang" at all...apparently once a 16 year old high schooler from Kansas named William Fenimore whose father committed suicide thanks to the government taking his land, Fenimore tried to bomb a local government office before being caught and serving a brief prison stint. Some time later, Fenimore's best friend Oliver Lang died in a, ah, hunting accident, and the day after, Fenimore changed his name to Oliver Lang, effectively making it extraordinarily hard in the future for anyone to figure out his past.
Oliver eventually discovers Michael is looking into him as some kind of potential Bomb-Throwing Anarchist, and...acts the victim, completely outraged that Michael would risk their friendship over discovering some "mistake, like all 16 year olds make!", and makes Michael seem to genuinely give up the hunt he's been spending all the movie trying to prove, even letting Grant go on a boy scout-like camping trip with the youth Discoverers group. Later however, Michael's girlfriend Brooke dies in a mysterious car crash after trying to follow Oliver from a shifty location...
So, as it turns out? Oliver is exactly some kind of bomb-throwing anarchist. He's a high-ranking member of an entire organization of anti-government extremists who have plagued America for years, Oliver heavily implied to be behind a major bombing of an IRS building that killed 60 people and framed an innocent man—Dean Scobee—for it who was killed in the blast, knowing the media is always eager to paint the actions of terrorism as "one man and one ideology" that can leave the country feeling safe once the "terrorist" is dead.
Brooke found out about an operation going on under Oliver's thumb in the area, and was bumped off for it in an "accident"...so when Michael continues to investigate, his suspicions renewed, he realizes too late that the "Discoverers" group that he sent Grant to? Is tied to Oliver's organization, and Oliver quickly takes an unknowing, still-happy Grant as a hostage, threatening Michael with Affably Evil smugness that if he just quiets down for a time, Oliver will finish his operation and let Michael and his son free. If not? "I found Oliver Lang dead in the woods one day. I would hate for Grant to see the same for you."
Michael seems to cow to Oliver's demands for a time, but can't stop himself from wanting Oliver taken down, and so retraces Brooke's footsteps, witnessing a bomb being loaded into a Liberty Delivery Service van from one of Oliver's "structural" jobs...with Grant inside the van too. Michael gives car chase to an isolated area, where Oliver ambushes Michael into crashing temporarily, drags him away from his car, and viciously beats him, bragging that the government deserves what its going to get for what it did to his father and Michael's wife, letting Michael know the local FBI office building is the target. Luckily, Michael overtakes Oliver and returns to his car, heading right to the local FBI office building as he knows that's where the bomb is headed.
Ramming his car through security into the parking garage beneath the FBI office building, the fatigued Michael finds and rushes the van...and realizes it's a genuine Liberty Delivery Service van, not the one he thought was coming here.
Michael then realizes the truth too late: he's been played. Oliver had selected Michael as his target months before meeting him, deliberately laid bread crumbs of his true nature to drive Michael into paranoid investigation that made him look batshit to all of his students and friends, used the Liberty van he was chasing to lure him to an isolated location where, in an apparent Evil Gloating Villain Ball moment, he let slip that their target was the FBI building...when in actuality, while he was beating Michael, he had the bomb planted in Michael's car, then took advantage of Michael "overhearing" their target to trick him into driving straight to the FBI headquarters, where an actual Liberty Delivery Service van was scheduled, thus fooling Michael into driving inside the building.
And as Michael realizes the bomb is in his car with horror, Oliver watches from atop a building across the city.
Thus the bomb goes off and...Michael is the "one guy, one ideology" scapegoat. Oliver deliberately made him look like a paranoid mess and turned him into his latest "Dean Scobee", because "manic man known for talking about terrorism floors car into FBI building moments before a bomb goes off" certainly paints a specific picture.
Sending off the now-orphaned Grant to live with Michael's relatives, the film ends with Oliver and his wife putting their house up for sale, their dialogue firmly revealing that this isn't their first rodeo of identity swapping and anarchy...and that they have much, much more to come.
Is he magnificent?
Holy shit, what if Andy Dufresne turned his knack for manipulation, identity theft and pulling off a victory against all odds into evil? Because that's what you get with Oliver. He's a brilliant manipulator, one of the masterminds of an entire anarchist organization that permeates government and has eyes everywhere, who turns Michael into his total pawn and frames him for a bomb attack, which Oliver has done before and plans to continue doing so. The whole film is one long fucking-with of Michael by Oliver, who utilizes Evil Gloating to his advantage and acts awesomely from "kind neighbor" to "outraged victim of Michael's suspicions" to "raving extremist" to "calmly affable Diabolical Mastermind", ultimately pulling off The Bad Guy Wins.
Hell, by the end of the film, it's not even clear how much of Oliver's past and actions are true. Michael outright questions if his real name even was William Fenimore and his dad died, or if that's just another one of his clever lies (though it is, ultimately, implied to be his true backstory), and even his kids may not be fully his own. He's a charming, mysterious, clever villain for sure.
Is he a bastard?
Ngl, Oliver is absolutely a piece of work. He very likely had a hand in Dean Scobee's bombing and framing, an act that killed over 60 people at the IRS building including the building's daycare center, which took out 10 kids. He threatens Grant—even if it turns out to be all part of the plan to never hurt the unaware boy and just make Michael believe he's in danger—kills Brooke, and winds up tricking Michael into blowing up the FBI building and killing over 100 people. When Michael confronts him over kids dying in his scheme during Oliver's Evil Gloating Genre Savvy moment, Oliver gleefully snarls out "It's a war, Michael! Children die in war!" How much of this was actually Oliver VS him just putting on a show as a maniacal lunatic—when he's anything but—is iffy, but it still makes him brutal.
He's a nasty, nasty customer, but he's also...genuinely affable in many respects, lets Grant go at the end without issue for leaving the kid alive (even when, in a deleted scene, the boy showcases right to Oliver's face he has suspicions), he seems to care about his wife and kids, and he's got what is a likely true Freudian Excuse in his father's tragic suicide after the government stole his land and drove Oliver's mom to poverty.
Final Verdict?
Majorly evil guy, but fuck if he ain't charming. I'm an easy Yes to Oliver Lang/William Fenimore.
WHAT A WONDERFUL DAY!
Goku Black
![[tup]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Thumbs_up_emoticon_3268.png "[thumb up]"){kind=small}
Lang
Umh wasn't the assassin exchange the thing that got this dude upvoted. I didn't fully read the ep as it was too long bit if that's less bad that it implies does he like even count ?
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
Yes to good Tim Robbins, who I'm glad you got, unlike bad Tim Robbins!
Lemme also get one I missed and I'm excited for. One of two in works of amazing puppetry.
This from...Dark Crystal: Age of resistance. I give you skekMal. The Hunter.
Who is the Hunter?
The counterpart to the Mystic urVa, the Archer, neither are like their people in the slightest. The Hunter is, unlike the sedentary hedonistic Skeksis, an active beast who savors the thrill of the hunt and disdains the politics of the Skeksis court. The Hunter is a beast of legend who targets many for the joy and thrill of the hunt.
Upon the discovery of draining Gelflings, the hero Rian flees and the demoted Chamberlain, skekSo summons the Hunter, who tracks down Rian and shows nothing less than abject brilliance in trapping him. Rian's father, the guardsman Ordon tries to overcome the Skeksis, but the Hunter, knocked into a pit of carnivorous plants, fearlessly drags Ordon with him...and survives, overtaking rian and giving him to the Chamberlain.
Interestingly here, the Hunter is initially disdainful of skekSo's pursuit of "a chair" as he derisively calls the throne, only for the Chamberlain to say the chair doesn't matter. It represents power. And just as skekMal hunts challenges and quarry, skekSo hunts power. Skek Mal? Is impressed and comes to an accord with the Chamberlain.
Upon Rian's escape, the Hunter seamlessly pursues his quarry and almost overcomes Rian and friend. It's then the Archer, his counterpart, puts an arrow in him, which would sacrifice himself as well, abducting the Gelfling brea to bait Rian into a chase.
Returning to the other Skeksis, skekMal collapses, to the horror of their Emperor who orders him healed (skekSo does NOT want Skeksis to die because of the terror he feels at his own approaching end)...the Hunter later revives and heads to join the battle of Skeksis and Gelfling.
Skek Mal all but overwhelms the Gelflings himself, boasting that "nothing can stop the hunt!" when Archer, realizing the only way to bring skekMal down for good declares that "The Hunt must END." And throws himself off a cliff, to skekMal's horror ("archer! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!") With Archer's death meaning skekMal's as well
Mitigating issues?
So, someone had the idea to make one of the Skeksis a nasty badass and I am totally here for it. The Hunter is smart. Everything is represented in his pure cunning, the way he sets up traps and outsmarts his opponents. I think he's got that part down pat.
Is he evil? Hell yes, he's a straight villain but he does have a weird code that he follows and hunts down only the best quarry. He absolutely hates the decadent backstabbing of the Skeksis court, preferring the wilds and the hunt.
Conclusion?
A keeper.
Goku Black
skekMal the hunter
I like saw his character page and was wondering.
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
Yes to skekMal. Good work!
Sure to Lang, Coppelius, and the Hunter.
and a yes to the Arlington Road example. I remember that movie. Granted, there're some stretches (Roger Ebert infamously pointed out: "How can anyone, even skilled conspirators, predict with perfect accuracy the outcome of a car crash? How can they know in advance that a man will go to a certain pay phone at a certain time, so that he can see a particular truck he needs to see? How can the actions of security guards be accurately anticipated? Isn't it risky to hinge an entire plan of action on the hope that the police won't stop a car speeding recklessly through a downtown area? ")
But hey, the film's pretty clear to the plotting.
Okay yeah, finding the EP and discussion on Asogi and there's a lot of misrepresentation of the information here. For one thing, he wasn't furious with Ryunosuke for representing Barok, he actually wanted Ryunosuke to be the defense because he knew Ryunosuke was more concerned with finding the truth than getting a not guilty verdict for his clients.
He is also in no way comparable to Miles Edgeworth as an Amoral Attorney. He does not coach witnesses, hide evidence, or do any other underhanded tricks to secure a Guilty verdict like Edgeworth did. The one time he does something pretty cruel in court—helping Daley Vigil remember his past suicide attempt and suffer a resultant breakdown—he's mentioned as having gone over to apologize later. He doesn't even have a lot of contempt for British people that I've seen—it's mostly the British government he has a problem with, which makes sense seeing as there literally is a government conspiracy at play in it.
There's other things in that post that are factually incorrect, but as it pertains to Kazuma's viability for Magnificent Bastard those are the main points wrong, in addition to the fact that Kazuma going on the assassin exchange program was in reality him conning the Big Bad Duumvirate as a means to get to England and learn more information.
So if this was the basis for his entry being written, he probably should be removed. (To be clear Kazuma is more of an Anti-Hero compared to Ryunosuke, but his biggest faults are repeatedly lying to people, including his friends, by omission, and for having an impulsive, vengeful streak that caused him to lash out at Gregson and later Barok.)
Edited by Octoya on Jan 8th 2022 at 11:57:18 AM
Ya don't say...
Lies and Violence!
Hunter and Oliver, cut Kazuma and Mabuse.
Edited by EmeraldEmperor on Jan 8th 2022 at 12:24:08 PM
Thanks for digging that up. ~Klavice, a word please?...
Octoya, we appreciate this.
Yes, cut. And we do need to have a conversation on this. Everyone makes errors, but this is a problem going back over five years now.
Edited by Lightysnake on Jan 8th 2022 at 12:00:21 PM
Please do put research and take the time to understand what's going on in the works we propose from folks. I'm going to be honest, I do feel quite awkward taking a post in good faith, upvoting it and then having to awkwardly go to locked pages just a week later to say "Um, yeah, I fucked up."
Klavice I'm sorry but pending some kind of action plan I'm going to be downvoting all effort posts to offset upvotes given to misinformation, we really need to work on some steps here.
^^ Oh, no problem! If there's no objection, I'll cut with a link back to this thread, then.
I took care of it and thanks again for all the work and attention to detail! You mentioned not necessarily disagreeing with the character's listing and let me add that if you'd like to do an accurate post to argue for their inclusion I would be very receptive to what you have to say!
I just read the post about Kazuma, and there was one issue I had with it. It says "Despite his supposed prejudice towards the English as a Japanese man, he holds many in high regard, including his former mentor when he accepted what his brother had become." This describes van Zieks, not Kazuma. Kazuma doesn't have a brother, a mentor, or a prejudice against the English. van Zieks has all of those things (he has prejudice against the Japanese, he holds his former friend, not mentor, Genshin Asogi in high regard when he learns what his brother Klint had become). I think the whole paragraph should be stricken because it's not accurate.
<DIE THE DEATH> <SENTENCE TO DEATH> <GREAT EQUALIZER IS THE DEATH>
Goku Black
Cut Kaz.
"That's right mortal. By channeling my divine rage into power, I have forged a new instrument in which to destroy you."
Yes to Jared, Copellius, Oliver, and skekMal. Cut Dr. Mabuse and Kazuma.
So more issues are popping up? Fantastic...
I'm not familiar with this version of Mabuse and I don't have any strong opinions on him, so I could go either way.