Subpages cleanup: Complete Monster

Firm to Mcleach. Abstaining on Sykes until I go watch the movie again.

@ Larkman: So Clinch still forces the prospector to engage in a gun fight even after he offers to give him the nugget as punishment for hiding it from him, and he cheats even though the man obviously won't win. Reminds me of Fletcher Nix. That is easily a Moral Event Horizon crossing, but if we let people in for just one Moral Event Horizon murder and two additional murders, I think that would be setting the bar slightly low. This trope is reserved for only the absolute worst villains: Serial Killers, rapists, slavers, life ruiners, torturers, arsonists, mass murderers, genocidal dictators, and Omnicidal Maniacs. He sounds very close to being a Complete Monster (very, very, close) but I think it needs just a tiny bit more. How are the other two murders executed? Why did he kill the other two people? What crimes does he commit besides murder? How many attempted murders? Does he abuse his wife? Tell us everything.

Tenative to Clinch. It was brought to my attention that he was a pedophile with a Marital Rape Licence.

@ Larkman: So Clinch still forces the prospector to engage in a gun fight even after he offers to give him the nugget as punishment for hiding it from him, and he cheats even though the man obviously won't win. Reminds me of Fletcher Nix. That is easily a Moral Event Horizon crossing, but if we let people in for just one Moral Event Horizon murder and two additional murders, I think that would be setting the bar slightly low. This trope is reserved for only the absolute worst villains: Serial Killers, rapists, slavers, life ruiners, torturers, arsonists, mass murderers, genocidal dictators, and Omnicidal Maniacs. He sounds very close to being a Complete Monster (very, very, close) but I think it needs just a tiny bit more. How are the other two murders executed? Why did he kill the other two people? What crimes does he commit besides murder? How many attempted murders? Does he abuse his wife? Tell us everything.

The basic gist of him is that he's a bandit with no qualms about killing people (whether necessary or not). The people he killed he just killed to make a point; that he's going to kill people until he finds out who kissed his wife. Just randomly chose a guy in the bar and shot him to make his point. Whom he certainly sees as property; once they're reunited he slaps her and grabs her by the throat before starting to remove his clothes saying that she has to perform her wifely duties (she then hits him with a rock and flees when he's unconscious). And again, he married her at age 9.

edited 24th Feb '15 2:30:52 PM by Larkmarn

I'm abstaining on Mcleach, for one reason or another, but there's really one defining factor to him- if we measure the animals he kills in the same way as humans. They're demonstrably sentient- some more so than others, but the anthropomorphism is present even in the non-speaking ones. Aside from that, Mcleach kills some animals and tortures a kid. Vile, but "torture" doesn't automatically equate to CM. If we can measure the animals he kills as comparable to humans, he's a definite stay, but if not, maybe I'll still support him, but it'll be weak.

On Sykes, my vote is and always shall be a . He's a Faux Affably Evil sociopath, and it's not the fact that he's trying to kill the heroes, it's that in the climax alone he tries to kill nearly the entire main cast. Once more, the animals are as human as the humans themselves, and among the group is a child who can't be any older than ten. He's a depraved character who shows his nature through depraved actions, and with the low standards of the setting, I feel he's heinous enough.

edited 24th Feb '15 2:39:24 PM by Scraggle

@ Scraggle: Sykes and Mcleach didn't know they were sentient though.

@ Larkman: So let me get this straight: Clinch is a ruthless bandit who has a massive ego and an insatiable greed who thinks he owns the town, as such, he terrorizes the town and steals all the gold he can find. When the prospector (rightfully) tries to hide the gold nugget he found for himself fair and square from Clinch, and Clinch finds it anyway, he decides the man must be murdered as punishment for trying to hide gold from him (even if he offered to just give it to him afterward) and so, he forces the poor old man into a rigged game he has no chance of winning likely just to give him a Hope Spot, before cheating and shooting on the count of two. Upon finding out that someone kissed his wife (who he had very illegally forced into marriage when she was way below the legal age) he decides to kill that person, and, because he thinks he owns the place, he tells the townspeople that they better get looking, for he shall continue to randomly kill them off until the person is found. He also tries to rape his wife at one point. Essentially, he's greed, egotism, and Disproportionate Retribution all rolled into one. Is that it? Is that his character in a nutshell? If so, super duper.

edited 24th Feb '15 2:58:22 PM by bobg

In a nutshell, yes. Though rather than trying to give the old prospector a Hope Spot, it was more to prolong his suffering. The guy was trying to get out of the "duel" the whole time.

Also, it's not so much he feels like he "owns the town" as he just doesn't think anyone in the west (he's not limited to one town) is able or willing to stop him.

Only hesitation about Clinch:

Requesting for more upvotes on Rage of Bahamut: Genesis's Gilles de Rais.

References are at posts 36053 and 36066.

Sorry for being MIA for so long. Truth was, I was being swamped by school work and I felt that I wouldn't be able to contribute satisfactory candidates or entries to the cleanup thread. I should be out of my hiatus completely in a month or so, but for now I finally finished an entry for Kancha Cheena from Agneepath (see post 32292 for the effortpost). Let me know if you think it's ready for primetime.

• Agneepath (2012): Kancha Cheena is a sadistic drug kingpin who seeks to establish a criminal empire in Mumbai. Kancha firmly believes in having no desire nor attachments in life, which he proves by manipulating his father into giving up the island village of Mandwa before he murders a school girl and frames Master Dinanath Chauhan, a highly respected school teacher, for the crime. After executing Master Chauhan and chasing the Master's family out of the island, Kancha begins running Mandwa as a concentration camp for the next 15 years. During this time, Mumbai’s police commissioner Gaitonde compares Kancha to Adolf Hitler given how horribly Kancha exploits and massacres villagers. When Vijay Dinanath Chauhan (the Master’s son) returns to the island, he finds out first-hand that Kancha will gleefully torture and kill anyone who opposes him. The extent of Kancha's brutality ranges from personally executing a dissenting villager and having his henchmen ambush and brutally murder Vijay’s newlywed wife during the hero's wedding day to callously tossing his own father down a flight of stairs to his death during the climax. What makes Kancha’s crimes truly standout, however, is that he embraces his own atrocities by comparing himself to the Devil or Ravana ruling his Lanka. Overall, Kancha’s ruthless nature and his shameless pride in his atrocities help him go down as one of the most vicious villains ever created in Bollywood history.

edited 24th Feb '15 8:05:52 PM by sanfranman91

Welcome back, Sanfran.

@36102: Yeah but, when all is said and done, Cody's still just one kid. No matter how harshly McLeach abuses and tries to kill him, McLeach's treatment of Cody only makes him barely more heinous than Medusa from the same series. I just personally have a hard time including a character when they only have one attempted victim.

@36103: Sykes also showed no indication that he planned on not honoring his part of the deal. After all, he let Fagin live after the sap inadvertently came up with a way to pay him back, even if Fagin didn't know he planned on kidnapping Jenny. He's also clearly not trying to kill her in the climax, he's trying to recapture her. He needs her if he wants his money. That's why he's trying to grab her when she lands on the hood of his car instead of throwing her off, or doing anything else that would result in her death. This means his attempted body count is only centered on one person and his pets, after the man purposefully interfered with his plans.

@36117: As bobg said, the problem is neither character knows animals in their verse are thinking and feeling beings, meaning they don't know they're essentially trying to "murder" a "person" when they try to kill animals. Adults in The Rescuers movies can't understand animals (though strangely the kids can), and no human in Oliver and Company can understand animals at all. And since we don't treat cruelty to animals the same as cruelty to people, this leaves both villains with an attempted body count of one person each. No matter how dark the villains make their movies, that still doesn't reach the baseline heinous level.

Those are actually some reasonable points there. I agree with Occasssional Exister here.

edited 24th Feb '15 6:01:56 PM by AustinDR

I agree with Occasional Exister. We know the animals are sentient but neither Sykes or Percivil do. Although while I don't consider simple killing of animals heinous, there are some levels of animal cruelty I can say meets the baseline - for example using zoo animals as slaughterhouse meat or starving an animal and beating it when it whines for food. But no the simple killing is heinous.

Speaking of needless animal cruelty, about Anton Bartok. Last night I rewatched The Fly II, and I'd say it's safe to say he still counts, as he doesn't really have any points against him, and his treatment of the dog meets what I'd call baseline animal cruelty - keeping it alive and in pain for two years.

Is that the reason Andross or the Aparoid Queen don't count? Because their victims were (albeit sentient and very humanoid) animals?

I doubt it has to do with the heinous standard as both pass it easily what with them being the Big Bad of their games. Also keep in mind that the Aparoid are not Always Chaotic Evil as the Aparoid queen does indeed possess moral agency (for one, the Aparoids talk) and she has a pretty high body count of several Cornerian civilians, General Pepper, Pigma, and almost Peppy.

As for Andross, didn't he kill Fox's father, experiment on many civilians, and try to destroy the universe? Not to mention being responsible for all of General Scales' atrocities. I'm not a huge Star Fox fan, but that's what I got.

I just need to say...we covered these points with Sykes and Percival before. They were still keeps. Not just once before, but at least two-three. That means it should be dropped.

Yeah, that's right...

Sykes I also think the horned king needs to go too).

@ Occasional Exister: it IS POSSBLE to have a CM with only one victim or attempted victim though, a great example would be Matt Engarde from the Ace Attorney series. The character just has to either have a large enough number of other crimes under their belt or have the execution of the murder (or attempted murder) be exceptionally heinouess. What makes the execution of Mcleaches attempted murder of Cody come across as extra evil to me, is the fact that he straight out toys with him for fun by repeatedly lowering him into and out of the water (all while singing no less). He also seemed very upset when his fun was interrupted and he had to just shoot the rope. He also did not even need to kill Cody, he could have just let him go, taken the captured eagle and any other captured animals he had back at his home that he could fit into his truck, and left before the rangers showed up at his home. Also, while Mcleach did not know the animals were sentient, and animal cruelty Is less heinouess than human cruelty, it is still illegal, and would count toward his rapsheet. Obviouessly animal cruelty alone would not make you a CM (unless it was really really really bad like say slaughtering a puppy farm or killing all animal life in a zoo or something of that level), but when combined with his attempted murder of a child...

Any more oppinions on Clinch? From what Larkman described, e sounds really bad.

Edit and Sorry, I was not done putting this post up until you had already put yours up.

edited 24th Feb '15 6:29:04 PM by bobg

Why should the Horned King go?

Bob, seriously. You know the rules of this thread. The Horned King, Mcleach and Sykes have been argued multiple times.

Should they go on the "deffinately a cm" section then?

And if a new argument comes up, then they can be reevaluated(let's not forget this key thing, as this has happened many times before). Now, I don't know if the argument that Occasional Eater brought up was brought up before(if it was, could somebody link to it? I never voted for these two after all, so I wouldn't know when it was). But if it wasn't, that's reason for a revote.

If it wasn't, I agree and voting on them due the baseline standard not being met.

I'm quite sure this is a rehash. It definitely is on Mcleach.

My for Sykes and Mcleach remains unchanged, especially seeing how this has already been brought up before. If we want to continue this argument, maybe we should find the dozen or so others and stop repeating points that seem to have been brought up before?

And the Horned King isn't going anywhere. Ignoring the fact he's attempted for child murder and willing harvests his own men, he's got the largest attempted body-count of any Disney villain listed there- it goes beyond genocide and village massacres and extends to the world at large. There are other villains with such a goal in mind, but they don't count for one reason or another.

Everything listed in Sykes' writeup happens in film, from threatening to kill the girl ("Don't cry, little girl- they only eat when I tell them to) to instructing others how to do it (Cement Shoes, no less). He more than once deploys his dogs on Fagin's pets and looses them on him and Dodger the moment he thinks he's not getting paid. There's no evidence suggesting otherwise that he was intending to let her go after he grabbed the girl, and it was with all intents attempted murder of everyone in the climax, so my remains unchanged. I will say, though, my for Mcleach has shaken a little, assuming this isn't all a repeat.

edited 24th Feb '15 7:45:24 PM by Scraggle