We all know GTA, it is among the most absurdly high heinousness standards in fictions, almost to the degree that no character actually CAN stand out as extra vile and count as Pure Evil for GTA standards.
So im just curious, how does Donald Love stand out? He isn’t the only corrupt businessman, mass killer or even cannibal in the universe.
Also, you wrote "it is [GTA] among the most absurdly high heinousness standards in fictions". Well, that's true for most video games, but GTA isn't a Torture Porn or a very disgusting franchise like the Human Centipede's series, so one or several characters could technically stand out from the rest.
Grand Theft Auto is far from being the fiction with the highest heinousness standards, even if we exclude Torture Porn. If we take Warhammer 40k, for example, Love would in no way stand out as dozens of villains committed genocides or destroyed entire planets (and I'm not even talking about the Chaos Gods).
Thanks very much for the explaination! I honestly didn’t think someone would take such time to explain so I really appreciate it. Also, about Avon Hertz, he has higher resources than Love and could commit a genocide if he wanted, but still failed, but he still qualifies because of the fact that he WAS going to.
Also when I said the standards are ”absurdly” high I only meant it is higher in comparison to other works in general since it has a very Gray-and-Black morality standards (so nothing negative meant). Because the higher the heinousness standards are, the lesser chance there is for a PE to appear that people can say with certainty is ”especially vile and takes the cake in this Crapsack World”.
Also does Eddie Low qualify? From what I read on his article he sounds like a qualifier given his very limited resources.
I don't think Eddie Low qualify, for these three reasons:
*None of his acts are explicitly shown, so we cannot really tell how terrible he really is;
*Low is within the franchise's boundaries in terms of heinousness, even if he murdered children;
*Low is listed under insecure.
Also, there are plenty, plenty of characters equally as bad as, if not worse than Low, such as Dreyfuss from GTA V who is a frightening rapist, torturer and possible serial killer. Even Trevor can be seen routinely kidnapping and leaving people to die when you switch to him.
Alright then. Trevor is also a complex case of an Affably Evil so he wouldnt qualify.
Lol, this discussion reminded me of the time when I asked one of my friend "Hey, how many people did you kill in GTA Online?"; he checked his stats and saw that he murdered nearly 80,000 NPCs! That number alone put to shame Love's body-count.
Donald Love barely stands out, but if we forget the non-canonical bs, he has technically the highest body count of the franchise (minus Avon Hertz, if only he would have been successful).
@Koovy I don't see why being insecure would disqualify Eddie Low from being Pure Evil, insecurity doesn't earn a necrophiliac pedophile any sympathy. And why doesn't Dreyfuss count?
@Plastique Tim Kim: the problem is that the Grand Theft Auto series is full of serial killers and mass murderers, so these two characters don't stand out particularly from the others.
In addition, an Insecure villlain cannot be Pure Evil, otherwise the villain has to be retired from the Insecure category. Low was listed as insecure because he couldn't count as "Tragic", but suffered from severe abuse and possibly rapes in his childhood, which turned him into a killer.
But why can't an Insecure villain be Pure Evil? Insecurity isn't strictly speaking a redeeming quality.
Yes it is because if an Insecure villain becomes accepted or genuenly liked by others, they would redeem themselves.
PEs on the other hand doesnt seek any genuine love from others and are fully aware of what they are doing, thus cannot be considered ”merely insecure”.
That's not always going to be the case. At the very least Insecure should be changed to one of the categories where it depends on how sympathetically the character's insecurity's played.
What do you think?