User blog comment:Jayden Jean-Baptiste/Injurin' Joe/@comment-27560932-20151114085817

In terms of an actual heinous standard, no, the two do not affect each other, but I refer to Injun Joe whenever someone brings Injurin' Joe up because on the TV Tropes thread which judged the two, Injun Joe was ruled a cut but Injurin' Joe got a cut, solely because his victims were less sympathetic than the former's. I still find this is an egregious case of hypocrisy because while Injun's victims may have been less sympathetic, when dealing with actual innocents, Injun is much more brutal than Injurin' by the way he casually threatens to disembowel a child. Injurin' never engages in talk like that; you can make the argument Injun acted the way he did because the children were in his way, but considering that's the exact same case for Injurin', that argument holds no water. In the long run, both characters are ruthless bandits who will happily kill anybody who crosses their path; the only real difference in measuring them seems to be that Injun killed a fellow criminal while Injurin' killed an innocent, while I feel the truth here is that Injun is no less brutal in dealing with innocents than Injurin'.

Even taking that out, I find none of them heinous enough; they engage in generic criminal behavior and try their hand and killing a few people. There are several villains I know who have engaged in basic villainy and yet still do not qualify for the Complete Monster status because they are not heinous enough, and tell me, why should that not be the same here? I know that the Complete Monster is a very subjective trope, especially in regards to how heinous a villain actually has to be in order to qualify, but there's no need for double standards here and honestly that's what I'm seeing.