Thread:LucidPigeons/@comment-3581997-20160427185751/@comment-26205772-20160427202447

What is listed on the Monster category is the broadest definition of how to count. There are many, many other factors that come into play when considering a Monster, most importantly in this case the heinous standard and how Phipps fares both by the general standard and compared to other villains. I've swept the Monster thread, back on TV Tropes (I'm not using their judgment to pinpoint whether or not he assuredly counts, mind you; merely to gather evidence) and back there he was cut on the grounds that, while Phipps is an out-and-out asshole, he lacks the body count some other character apparently have and doesn't do enough directly.

Now, with that said, thank you for bringing this evidence to the table. I'll concede that, say, a non-action dictator can count via manipulating events that bring about destruction and death indirectly while said dictator still has the knowledge that these events will have such consequences. Phipps does sound nasty from both the crimes you listed and skimming through the page, but before I lean to one side or another I should ask how he fares compared to other villains. Aside from that "burning a populated building down" tidbit, Phipps doesn't seem to have (directly or indirectly) much actual blood on his hands, and while breaking other people and mass torture is nasty and cements him as irredeemable, this seems a setting where mass murder seems to be a common thing. Do Phipps' crimes really stand out as exceptionally heinous compared to the acts of other villains in the setting?