So in other words, neutral evil. He'll exploit the law to further his selfish goals like the rest of them, but he also has zero hesitation to ignore the law when that suits him better, which precludes any "lawful" alignment.
Chaotic feels more appropriate, since they're only really predictable if you try and think of the absolute dumbest possible thing they could say or do at any given moment.
Hey. Trump probably isn't really a billionaire and has managed to get charged for crimes even though his former job made him legally above the law. I don't think lawful evil is the correct alignment.
Nah, he's textbook neutral evil. He'll sometimes break the law to his advantage and sometimes exploit the law to his advantage. He doesn't give a fuck either way.
Actually, I'm pretty sure Trump, being the eternal narcissist who thinks of himself being above the rules as a given, would be Neutral Evil. He wants to assert his selfish will on society IN SPITE OF the law as often as by USING the law.
Nah, I'm pretty sure that he's still lawful evil. Just because the rules are getting more nonsensical and arbitrary doesn't mean that he's no longer committing evil using rules and regulations like a true lawful evil villain.
I don't know if you're one of them, but a lot of people think that chaotic evil is inherently more evil than neutral or lawful evil. It's not. It's just a different flavor of malevolence 🤷
Bill Gates really doesn't belong on this. He donates a ridiculous amount of money to several different charities every year without even using them as tax right offs.
Yes being a billionaire is in itself deplorable but he's one of the best we have in terms of giving back to society.
Lmfao, this one man is hoarding enough money to solve world hunger 10 times over, and enough influence to change the entire way the world is run, but what he wants (and I know this because of his actions) is to never drop out of the top 5 richest people on the planet list.
And he has you not only convinced that he gives a shit about anyone but himself, but so much so that you are willing to publicly lick his boot.
Good to see the PR is serving its purpose I guess..
You're right, but 100 billion is definitely not enough to solve world hunger. It an enormous systematic problem and can't be solved by just throwing pocket change at it.
Now, influence maybe, that's hard to quantify.
He made that money by stealing the surplus value of other people's labor, which probably would've done much more good in the hands of the workers instead of being hoarded, as much of it is now.
His business practices harmed consumers.
His meddling in education has caused much harm.
He met with Epstein many times, and probably committed statutory rape.
he is literally one of the most deplorable people known to man and is the literal definition of a capitalist. Whitewashing, propaganda, proprietisation, he does all and everything detrimental to society
looks like someone fell for the propaganda. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD BILLIONAIRE. which charity does he mainly donate to again? oh yeah, the one which his family controls. he has painted himself as a genuinely good person. idc how much he pledges to donate when he dies, if he still has the money now, he is evil.
The dude single handily fucked the American education system by mainstreaming voucher schools. His "gifts to education" was a poison pill and that really does sum up the entirety of billionaire philanthropy.
Lawful doesn't necessarily mean following the laws of a state, but adherence to order and hierarchy. Buying politicians to bureaucratically stack the deck in one's favor is compatible with lawful evil, for someone upholding a hierarchy in which they're (supposed to be) on top.
If it's more driven by greed than ideology, it's probably more neutral evil.
Nah. Some of those rat fucks are straight chaotic evil. Lawful usually means they have a consistent set of ideals they follow. Rules they won't break and such. Some, like Trump and musk, would gladly break any rule they've previously set to get just a bit further ahead than others.
The idea that one of the most famous people/families on the planet doesn't have influence on, at the very least, public opinion, which then goes on to influence policy, is ridiculous.